Go woke, go broke

[Segnosaur]

Go fash, lose cash
And the Atlanta-based aParent Miracles Foundation for this November is headed to Texas instead after the NAACP issued a travel advisory for Florida “in direct response to Governor Ron DeSantis’ attempts to erase Black history, and to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Florida schools,” the organizer wrote the county’s tourism office.

https://www.aol.com/finance/broward-says-losses-mount-tourism-205500893.html?guccounter=1

I have to say, it seems a little weird to use Texas as an alternate location to Florida, given the fact that Texas has its own issues with racism. (For example, Gov. Abbot signed a bill limiting the use of Critical race theory.)

Yeah, Texas is probably a little friendlier than Florida, but there are 48 other states, and at least some of them aren't controlled by right wing lunatics. Why not hold it in California? Or if that's too expensive (and you want some place warm) New Mexico? Colorado? Certainly there should be enough hotel space in at least one of those cities to host a major conference.

 

[Carlotta]

It too bad Richmond isn't considered a "destination" city. Gay-friendly, black majority, and plenty warm!

 

[Myriad]

It too bad Richmond isn't considered a "destination" city. Gay-friendly, black majority, and plenty warm!

Plus, it's south of all the rich men.

 

[Cat Not Included]

I happened to run across the site Parrot analytics, which provides 'ranks' of TV show popularity/demand compared to other TV shows. No idea where their metrics are from, but out of curiosity I looked up a few shows that I could see as being legitimately described as "woke" - not merely "has a black/female/gay character" (which often is the grand total of the 'woke' criteria), but actively talking about/addressing "woke" topics.

Moon Girl & Devil Dinosaur - 3 x the demand compared to average shows.
Heartstopper - 21 x the demand compared to average shows.
The Dragon Prince - 24 x the demand compared to average shows.

So, on that metric being 'woke' sure doesn't seem to have turned those shows into failures.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

After some time navel gazing, and gathering my thoughts on the subject, here's what I came up with (and feel to disagree). And it's not any different that what I've been saying all along, but here it is in a condensed form for the idiot barking twitter puppies:

I'm not anti-woke, per se. I wish more people were actually more for social justice. All people are equal and should have relatively equal chances, in as much as possible.

What pisses me off is people just virtue signalling, or trying to cause an internet crap-storm for free publicity, while being anything BUT about social justice.

And that's my real issue with Hollywood these days. You can't really tell me that Amazon is "woke" or for "social justice" in any meaningful sense, just because they made a movie about female elves and black elves, while their actual human employees have to pee in a bottle, or at least one depot resulted in casualties because they weren't allowed to leave early before a hurricane hit. Or you can't tell me that Hollywood these days as a whole is "woke" or for "social justice", because they cast some talentless chick in a lead role, while during the writer strike the executives were giving interviews to the effect of, "eh, let them strike... when they can no longer afford food or to pay their mortgage, they'll come back to work."

That's just not telling me that they actually care about actual people.

Sorry, I don't actually give as much of a flip about 'black elves matter' as about actual people.

 

[Checkmite]

After some time navel gazing, and gathering my thoughts on the subject, here's what I came up with (and feel to disagree). And it's not any different that what I've been saying all along, but here it is in a condensed form for the idiot barking twitter puppies:

I'm not anti-woke, per se. I wish more people were actually more for social justice. All people are equal and should have relatively equal chances, in as much as possible.

What pisses me off is people just virtue signalling, or trying to cause an internet crap-storm for free publicity, while being anything BUT about social justice.

And that's my real issue with Hollywood these days. You can't really tell me that Amazon is "woke" or for "social justice" in any meaningful sense, just because they made a movie about female elves and black elves, while their actual human employees have to pee in a bottle, or at least one depot resulted in casualties because they weren't allowed to leave early before a hurricane hit. Or you can't tell me that Hollywood these days as a whole is "woke" or for "social justice", because they cast some talentless chick in a lead role, while during the writer strike the executives were giving interviews to the effect of, "eh, let them strike... when they can no longer afford food or to pay their mortgage, they'll come back to work."

That's just not telling me that they actually care about actual people.

Sorry, I don't actually give as much of a flip about 'black elves matter' as about actual people.

That's great, but here's the problems with all of that: What you're describing is not a "Woke Hollywood" problem, it's a "Hollywood" problem, and it long predates anything that people these days insist on defining as "woke". Any movie about a sports underdog who perseveres and triumphs by force of talent and will for instance is a hypocritical message from an industry that is built from its birth on networking, favoritism, and nepotism; and so on it goes. The implication of that is that you should be just as jaded about TV and movies in general, and certainly any film or show with any positive, values-based (but not necessarily "woke") message.

But you're not - or at least, you haven't felt a need to express that jadedness with media in general for that hypocrisy the way you've felt compelled to speak up about "woke" media specifically. That makes it seem like you've dug for and found a reason that on a surface level validates a position you already hold, and so it matters to you in the context of a discussion about that held position, but it's not something you care about externally to that.

 

[Cat Not Included]

After some time navel gazing, and gathering my thoughts on the subject, here's what I came up with (and feel to disagree). And it's not any different that what I've been saying all along, but here it is in a condensed form for the idiot barking twitter puppies:

I'm not anti-woke, per se. I wish more people were actually more for social justice. All people are equal and should have relatively equal chances, in as much as possible.

What pisses me off is people just virtue signalling, or trying to cause an internet crap-storm for free publicity, while being anything BUT about social justice.

And that's my real issue with Hollywood these days. You can't really tell me that Amazon is "woke" or for "social justice" in any meaningful sense, just because they made a movie about female elves and black elves, while their actual human employees have to pee in a bottle, or at least one depot resulted in casualties because they weren't allowed to leave early before a hurricane hit. Or you can't tell me that Hollywood these days as a whole is "woke" or for "social justice", because they cast some talentless chick in a lead role, while during the writer strike the executives were giving interviews to the effect of, "eh, let them strike... when they can no longer afford food or to pay their mortgage, they'll come back to work."

That's just not telling me that they actually care about actual people.

Sorry, I don't actually give as much of a flip about 'black elves matter' as about actual people.

I think the only people saying that Amazon, Disney, Netflix, Hollywood and such are "woke" are the people complaining about how bad it is that they are "woke". I think most people recognize that these companies are almost entirely interested in making money, and will at best do whatever they think will get them money, and at worst will sometimes actually avoid doing "woke" things even if it WOULD make them money.

I think there are, however, writers/directors/etc. who DO want to create content and tell stories that could be classified as "woke", and I think some of them are doing a fantastic job and making some really enjoyable watching content. But I don't think its fair to either credit these big companies for the work these writers do (when a lot of the time it seems they are fighting the big company to actually do it!), or to blame them for having to work for a big company that overall doesn't share their vision.

And I certainly don't think it makes sense to say "overall this big company is bad, therefore it was wrong of them to include a black/gay/female/trans/etc character", which seems to be an opinion some people take.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, I certainly won't fault those directors or wish them to fail, mind you. I can however fault the parent company if it goes doing interviews designed to cause an internet crap-storm, while not actually showing any sign of actually sharing those values. E.g., they SAY they're all for female empowerment in movies, but they still pay their actual RL female employees less. E.g., they SAY they're all for black empowerment in movies, but the black character they come up with is effectively the black receptionist to meet quotas meme. Etc.

And while it might or might not cause them to fail, I hope I can be somewhat excused for the schadenfreude wishing that they did and this trend came finally crashing down.

 

[bruto]

Well, I certainly won't fault those directors or wish them to fail, mind you. I can however fault the parent company if it goes doing interviews designed to cause an internet crap-storm, while not actually showing any sign of actually sharing those values. E.g., they SAY they're all for female empowerment in movies, but they still pay their actual RL female employees less. E.g., they SAY they're all for black empowerment in movies, but the black character they come up with is effectively the black receptionist to meet quotas meme. Etc.

And while it might or might not cause them to fail, I hope I can be somewhat excused for the schadenfreude wishing that they did and this trend came finally crashing down.

I can see that, but the alternative to the trend of seeming better than you are is probably not being better but seeming worse. One can hope that the people putting on the show are realizing, in some small way, that what they say is more right than what they do, and that their effect on the culture will be positive over a long run. Of course they can hope that reform comes after they've died and passed their ill gotten gains to their over-entitled kids. But we can at least hope that some of the seeds being planted will grow.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

One can only hope.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

To be honest, though, I'd still rather they'd "show, not tell." Like, just become the company who pays women the same, and just had a box studio hit anyway. THEN the others might take notice.

Or let me see Gillette nixing their "pink tax". Yeah, then I'll be convinced.

The current situation really makes me think of everyone being willing to help, or even being a hero and willing to die, as long as it's in a HYPOTHETICAL situation. Like, man, if you only called me when you moved LAST WEEK, I'd totally have helped. If it's next week, nah, sorry, exactly that day I can't.

It's really the definition of that. If it's in a fictive movie scenario or in some ad, they're all about helping social justice.

 

[Dr. Keith]

So companies are going “woke” simply for the profits?

— shocking!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

you can't tell me that Hollywood these days as a whole is "woke" or for "social justice", because they cast some talentless chick in a lead role, while during the writer strike the executives were giving interviews to the effect of, "eh, let them strike... when they can no longer afford food or to pay their mortgage, they'll come back to work."

You have a funny idea of what 'Hollywood as a whole' is.

News flash. Female actors have been playing leading roles in movies for over 100 years. That you even consider the idea of a female lead as being "woke" or "social justice" is telling, and your description of them being 'talentless chicks' seals it.

Face it, you're railing against social justice because you're a bigot just like the rest of them. Of sure, you say you're not anti-woke and wish more people were actually more for social justice, but then you pull out the trope about 'talentless chicks' as if women are somehow being given roles just because they are female.

Perhaps you should try acting in a Hollywood movie yourself, and then you will find out how much talent is needed (more than most of us have). Maybe you should try directing and producing one too, and then you might understand why 'executives' are generally not too happy about writers' strikes. If there was one role in movie making that could do with more talent...

 

[Lithrael]

You have a funny idea of what 'Hollywood as a whole' is.

News flash. Female actors have been playing leading roles in movies for over 100 years. That you even consider the idea of a female lead as being "woke" or "social justice" is telling, and your description of them being 'talentless chicks' seals it. (...)

Yeah. The intersection of Hollywood and Helping the Little Guy has always, broadly, been Can We Make a Buck. Saw this over on the Tumblr earlier and it's kind of applicable:

What about Roger Corman, who in the 60s through 80s employed more women in his film productions than even today's productions, was the only foothold that any women wanting to break into the film industry had for decades, but did so primarily because they worked cheaper than men. He gave a platform to female directors to broadcast whatever political message they wanted, so long as they met a certain quota of screentime for bare breasts? He always insisted that female characters solved their own problems instead of a deus ex boyfriend, but also thought that female characters being raped was a great way to draw an audience.

Without him, a number of female directors, producers, and even woman-run production companies universally recognized as feminist never would have gotten off the ground, but when we point at any b-movie from the 60s through 80s with exploitative representations of women, through sheer statistical chance, it is probably one of his films.

I don't want to call Roger Corman feminist, but I would say the outcomes of some of his actions and choices were industry-shaking in how they advanced feminist goals.

Sounds to me like your beef is mainly that Corman could have a press release trying to score SJW Points off the back of that, and entertainment mags would run it. Sure, that PR BS stuff is obnoxious, but it generally does not wag the dog.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You have a funny idea of what 'Hollywood as a whole' is.

News flash. Female actors have been playing leading roles in movies for over 100 years. That you even consider the idea of a female lead as being "woke" or "social justice" is telling, and your description of them being 'talentless chicks' seals it.

Uh... you realize that I've been making that exact same point for the past decade or so, right? Like, the part where I explicitly said before this thread even existed that we actually had a black female action hero, about half a decade before the white one in Alien?

In fact, that's that's what irks me about the Hollywood posers: being told that their doing what's been the NORM for the last half a century is somehow progressive and brave. And then the legions of idiot keyboard warriors on Twitter then imagining themselves as singlehandedly saving the world and putting the fascists in their place by repeating the talking points of some very non-woke corporate idols. You know, what we used to call 'fanboys'

And, no, dumb strawman noted, I don't consider them talentless for being female, but for just being talentless. Some of them lately. Not all, but enough. But then I remember the old law that '90% of everything is crap'.

But yeah, that's what irks me recently. Previously you could say that yeah, female X absolutely nailed a role, or starred in a well written plot, while Y didn't act well, or were cast in a stupid plot. While nowadays just the possibility that you might mention that some people might have been both female or black, and talentless or starring in bad Mary-Sue-Karen plots, is enough to bring every sad wanking loser out of the woodwork to tell you how you're various combinations of -ist and -phobe, even if they have to pull a strawman out of the ass. Suddenly being a corporate fanboy is apparently progressive

 

[Dr. Keith]

If you are irked by people having stupid reactions to your stated opinions the internet may not be a great place to spend your time.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yeah, no kidding...

 

[Roger Ramjets]

And, no, dumb strawman noted, I don't consider them talentless for being female, but for just being talentless.

Which is why you said talentless chick, right?

Definition of chick

1. a baby bird, especially a young chicken

2. a young woman. This word is considered offensive by many women.​

You could have said talentless actor, which while still derogatory would at least be gender-neutral. But no, you had to single out young women for your derision.

But that's not the worst of it. The real problem is that you ignored 100 years of movie roles to accuse current Hollywood executives of cynically casting 'talentless' young women in leading roles in an attempt to appear 'woke'. And you don't see how this is bigoted because bigots never do.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

So basically the problem is just still that you're doing word twisting and ass pulling to pretend to gave a point, right? Like, still ignore that I even told you that I've written the same thing before, and even given examples of successful female roles before, just so you can have your jolly good ego-wank?

That determined to invent some BS to feel like some kind of hero in your own mind?

Yeah, colour me not impressed

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

And yes, I have no problem with being offensive to someone who seems to have been cast just to tick some checkboxes, and then they're offensive to me by telling me that I'm some kind of -ist or -phobe if I don't give them my money. What's good for the goose, and all that. If they have no problem with preemptively insulting me (as part of a very broad category) in interviews, I have 0% problem with insulting them right back. Nor with insulting the sad wanking losers who think their dumb fanboyism for that kind of thing and repeating canned corporate talking points is actually saving the world or anything