1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

(POTENTIAL CONTROVERSY) 007 Film Continued Discussion

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by ravagekitteh, Dec 10, 2019.

  1. ravagekitteh
    Skink Chief

    ravagekitteh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,577
    Likes Received:
    2,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given the sheer size of some of my responses in the Random Thread of Randomness, and the likelihood of this provoking more and derailing it, I figured it is probably best if I stuck my reply and we continued continued here and the Random Thread of Randomness return to its original purpose (and we don’t subject its denizens to another tedious discussion about politics! :D) . So far we seem to have managed to stay fairly civil and not get particularly angry with each other in this particular subject, so here’s hoping we can keep it as this civilised discussion rather than the argument it frequently devolves to! :p

    Anyways:

    I think you may have a point there. I think @Killer Angel probably hit the nail on the head with how the movie will turn out, but the fact remains that enough people that are averse to that kind of thing has labelled it as “woke” and are now determined to boycott it and insist it’s terrible no matter how it turns out. The performance of it probably won’t do too badly; the average cinema goer in all likelihood doesn’t give a stuff about that sort of thing; but the effect of the minority combined with the fact it looks to be a fairly middling film overall will probably mean it will at least perform badly compared to some of the others.
    I think I have to disagree with you there. Assuming that by “wokeness” you are referring to things like female empowerment and LGBTQTS people being featured, there is nothing about “wokeness” that ruins a story at all. To give an example you might be interested in, possibly the single most well received piece of Transformers media of all time is the comic Transformers More Than Meets the Eye (later Transformers Lost Light). It contains many features I think you would consider “woke” - there’s gay marriage and transgender characters and such, but the concepts themselves never play a major part in the story or at least not in a “look at how woke I am” “in your face” kind of way. Instead they’re dealt with in a sensitive and well thought out way, and the series as a whole is exceptionally well written and engaging. And it shows - it’s drawn in a near universal set of praise, not just from us “young SJW types” but from the entire fandom and beyond; the whole comics industry has showered upon it countless of (well earned) awards. If you can get hold of it, I would thoroughly recommend it to anyone - if anyone has Kindle Unlimited, the first couple are free on there.

    There are numerous other examples as well, and I think the idea that the inclusion of “woke” concepts automatically ruins a piece of media is a terrible one. If anything, it should broadly be encouraged as the values it promotes are pretty much all positive. I know you have an issue with feminism, but even that, when done right and not how the few vocal “man hating” nutters sometimes makes it appear is still a positive message to display. At the end of the day, while many trolls and misogynists would have you believe it’s about empowerment of women over men and a few vocal but non-representative “feminist” nutters don’t exactly help in that regard, feminism is still ultimately about achieving equality between the sexes, and while things are set up in most countries so it should theoretically already be in place, in practice it’s not hard to see how it’s not (perhaps on a more societal basis rather than law) and there is still work to be done to rectify it. In any case though, I’m getting a bit off topic.

    My point is, the presence of “woke” stuff doesn’t in itself make a work bad, or indeed make the work anything other than slightly more representative of the modern day. The only time it really can be a problem, and to be fair I think this is what you were trying to get at in the line I quoted, is when the film or whatever is built around “being woke”. Even that isn’t a guarantee to be bad - it’s entirely possible to create a great film based around a “woke” concept (e.g. a sensitive and thoughtful film on what it is like to be transgender in the modern day) but if the film isn’t like that then I agree it can be detrimental. Even when it is though, it isn’t the fault of the “woke” ideas themselves; it’s instead in the way they are handled and in the writing as whole. Because if your major selling point is that a film is “woke” and not anything else, then chances are the film doesn’t have much to offer and the writing likely isn’t that good (or at least it’s not unreasonable to assume that). The same goes for if a film’s “woke” message is delivered very hamfistedly or not handled well and ending in the right morals. Neither are the fault of the message; with the former, any moral is going to feel forced and overdone if the delivery is butchered, no matter what it’s preaching and with the latter, if you don’t have a clue how to deal with “woke” concepts you should probably stay the hell away from using them, or at least don’t make them pivotal to the plot.

    Overall then, whilst I agree that when handled badly “woke” aspects can be problematic, I would strongly argue that it isn’t the “wokeness” itself that makes these things bad, and complaining about it being “woke” in itself instead of criticising the poor writing or handling of it is purely problematic. If it continues, it may well result in communities such as the LGBTQTS one and others having no representation whatsoever again, which is something nobody wants. The same goes for the inverse of course - if the trend of “it’s woke, it must be good and if you don’t like it, you’re an evil commie nazi etc” carries on, the natural conclusion is a torrent of terrible films that the only thing going for them is “wokeness” and anyone disagreeing being labelled a racist, and that most certainly isn’t good either. I will freely admit there are certain idiots on the left side of the spectrum that do this, the Tweeter in your other video being a good example (although interestingly enough I did a bit of Twitter trawling and couldn’t find anyone else that really had the same view as him), and although I think it’s slightly more forgivable than the right wing nutters “raging against ‘the gays’ being shown on the telly” (which is the logical extreme of hating “wokeness” and absolutely not something I’m accusing any of the members of the forum of doing, to be clear) it still isn’t exactly ideal.

    I think the right answer is somewhere in the middle - gently encourage the positive things “wokeness” promotes to be delivered in a skilful and thoughtful way, or else not making a big deal of them (because frankly, the fact someone is gay or transgender or whatever shouldn’t be something we make a big deal of anyway; we should just accept it), and not hate on things just because they promote “woke” concepts or blindly adore them for it for the same reason.

    In any case though, I think this horrendous wall of text is probably enough, so I forgive you if you don’t feel like stomaching it all in one go! :p
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
  2. Paradoxical Pacifism
    Skink Chief

    Paradoxical Pacifism Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,632
    Likes Received:
    3,391
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do agree that writing itself should be critiqued rather than the 'woke' messages/themes some movies use. That should honestly be a thing for all forms of media :confused:.

    Correct me if i'm wrong - I almost never watch movies - but I think screenwriters/directors/investors or basically anyone in general involved with making decisions on the writing of a movie, aren't experienced enough. At the same time, they aspire to use well-meaning themes/messages, but don't really know how to implement them correctly within the story.
     
    ChapterAquila92 and LizardWizard like this.
  3. LizardWizard
    OldBlood

    LizardWizard Grand Skink Handler Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,286
    Likes Received:
    9,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am looking forward to following this thread. My alerts failed to update me with the new post in Random Thread of Randomness. I am like 30 pages behind the curve. And I don't think I want to go digging to find the relevant postings.

    I am always lost in these types of conversations. Why is being woke considered a negative? Are both sides of the conversation using a different connotation of the word? To my knowledge being woke means to be aware of various social injustices and systemic racism and discrimination against protected classes.
     
  4. ravagekitteh
    Skink Chief

    ravagekitteh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,577
    Likes Received:
    2,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We’ve had several discussions on this in the past, some of which you’ve been around for, but this time around the key posts are: here, here, here alone with this one, this one, this one and this one (honestly it’s pretty much all the posts after the first). Hope that helps if you haven’t found them already :)
     
    LizardWizard likes this.
  5. LizardWizard
    OldBlood

    LizardWizard Grand Skink Handler Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,286
    Likes Received:
    9,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sweet, it was a recent conversation. I will go back and read the last couple of pages in the thread.
     
    ravagekitteh likes this.
  6. Killer Angel
    Slann

    Killer Angel Prophet of the Stars Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,941
    Likes Received:
    32,877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As i have been summoned, for handy reference i will quote myself.

     
  7. Scalenex
    Slann

    Scalenex Keeper of the Indexes Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Likes Received:
    18,315
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It looks like this movie is on shaky ground even if "Get woke, go broke" doesn't apply.

    I think the early James Bond movies hit the zeitgeist of the 1960s and 1970s and then the series coasted on the established brand for decades, but the franchise has had less material to work with when the Cold War ended. Also, since blockbuster movies have to cater to an "international audience" that means you cannot make plots that point at international human abuses if any real government would take the slightest hint of offence.

    We cannot have anything that remotely hints at the CCP trafficking of abducted young women in southeast Asia, CCP mass incarceration of religious minorities, CCP systemic harvesting of organs from said minorities, CCP's systemic theft of intellectual property, The CCP's under the table support to third world dictators, the CCP's abysmal pollution or CCP's use of pandas as political weapons.

    It's not just the Chinese Communist Party. Offending almost any government is taboo. One of the many problems with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was that the bigwigs were afraid to put the Soviet Union in the crosshairs...a government which doesn't exist anymore.

    The Indiana Jones trilogy is based on clear good guys and clear bad guys, in this case Nazis. But the fourth Indiana Jones movie kept bouncing back and forth between evil Communists and evil Capitialists. Yes, I understand we don't live in a world of black and white, our world has shades of gray. The thing is, Indiana Jones is not a reflection of the real. It's an escapist fantasy. Within that cinematic world, I don't want shades of grey. 007 is similar. I want to keep shades of grey to a minimum. If you want shades of grey, that's what Jason Bourne is for.

    Woke or not, on zeitgeist alone, James Bond's womanizing seems weird with twenty-first century norms. I don't remember which movie it was, I haven't seen any twenty-first century Bond movies but there was one scene where Bond seduced a young woman in the shower who was a former sex trafficking victim. Some argue that she was too psychologically damaged to be able to say no. That's a little too heavy for a Bond movie. A movie protagonist shouldn't do that. On the other hand, if James Bond doesn't womanize, he arguably isn't James Bond.

    James Bond has witty banter, blows things up, sleeps with beautiful women around the world, and always maintains a suave demeanor. If you take out any of these things, he's not James Bond. I would have to agree with the Critical Drinker and state that Daniel Craig is not that great at witty banter and having a suave demeanor because he always seems mopey.

    Going to the "Get woke, go broke" thing. It's one thing to immasculate Luke Skywalker, but it's another thing to immasculate James Bond. James Bond is the living personsification of a masculine power fantasy. Maybe he represents a masculine power fantasy that is inappropriate in 2020, but if that's the case, it's better not to include him at all.

    Why not create a spy movie heroine that exists in her own franchise. Movie goers are starving for new stuff, but everything we get is rehashed old IP and what little new stuff we have is Jupiter Ascending or Mortal Engines. Yerch.
     
  8. Killer Angel
    Slann

    Killer Angel Prophet of the Stars Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,941
    Likes Received:
    32,877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Luckily, movies as "Pride" do exist.
     
    ravagekitteh and LizardWizard like this.
  9. LizardWizard
    OldBlood

    LizardWizard Grand Skink Handler Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,286
    Likes Received:
    9,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At the risk of bringing this off topic; how is Luke emasculated?
     
  10. Scalenex
    Slann

    Scalenex Keeper of the Indexes Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Likes Received:
    18,315
    Trophy Points:
    113
    30 second version



    14 minute version (contains foul language)

     
  11. Killer Angel
    Slann

    Killer Angel Prophet of the Stars Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,941
    Likes Received:
    32,877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ...the horror...
     
  12. Scolenex
    Ripperdactil

    Scolenex Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I believe the Austin Powers movies were based on deconstructing this very notion of a major zeitgeist change. That came out over twenty years ago.

    That means James Bond movies were sort of old and tired in 1997.

    There is another school of thought on "Get Woke, Go Broke." It's the idea that this relationship is correlational not causational. "This franchise is tanking. No one cares about it anymore. What if we put wokness in it? Then we have a 10% chance of saving it as opposed to a 0% chance of saving it."

    I didn't not watch the latest Terminator and Charlies Angels movies because they were woke. I chose not to watch them because I didn't care. I didn't like the previous movies in the respective franchises.

    That said. At the end of the day, Hollywood executive types want to make money, they don't want to save (or destroy) franchises. In a capitalist system, if some action loses money, it's best to stop doing it.

    I'm curious to see what a non-capitalist system does. The CCP sunk a lot of state funds into creating a Chinese verison of Hollywood and Bollywood. They've been big on making propaganda and generic entertainment for their domestic market but their first attempt to make an international blockbuster flopped hard. So did their second attempt.

    I'm sure Hollywood executives read these off-topic comments on Lustria-Online regularly. So just to give you guys a heads up. China looks like an untapped market. If you censor and distort your media so it's acceptable to the CCP, you will alienate US customers. Eventually, the CCP will steal your stuff to feed their own domestic industry, and then ban your products in China. Then you won't get any of the Chinese market and you will have eaten the goodwill of your original customers.

    Also, stop givng J.J. Abrams film projects...but that is a separate issue.
     
  13. LizardWizard
    OldBlood

    LizardWizard Grand Skink Handler Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,286
    Likes Received:
    9,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Drinking milk is hardly emasculating.

    As for the second video it is full of bad faith arguments that almost veer towards actual literally criticism, but then stop before their own self contradiction. Especially when talking about the mythical status of Luke, Leah, and Han. The entire point of movie eight is that that myths can't save you. You have to save you. They're deliberately propped up as myths and then shown to be humans. That theme is obvious and repeated through out the entirety of the movie. Luke discarding the lightsaber plays directly into this. It is important because it is not only his saber, but Anikan's as well. The audience expects that Rey might be part of the Skywalker line. Only to have the force cave contradict it.

    The idea of linage and connection to the old franchise is intentionally severed. Rey isn't Rey Skywalker, she is Rey of nowhere. Who is Snoke? Doesn't matter he is just a stepping stone for Kylo. Kylo is obsessed with Vader. He wants to emulate his ancestor. Yet in the end he manages to do what Vader never could. He kills his master and takes his place.

    Yes, characters have changed. Some for the better and some for the worse. Luke was always arrogant. Idealistic, but arrogant none the less. He not only believes that Vader can be saved, he believes he can do it. In the end he redeems Vader not by winning against Palpatine, but my losing to him. Vader's love for the son he never knew causes him to lash out at Palatine to defend Luke. Vader's Redemption is exactly in line with what we have seen of Anakin all a long. He cares far less about Jedi and Sith than he does about family and self.

    Luke's betrayal of Kylo feels poignant and disappointing. The theme of the movie. The heroes of old will disappoint. It is time for a new generation. Luke's failure is born of a fear from his order failing. This ultimately leads to the lose of the fledgling Jedi rebirth and sends Kylo on his current trajectory.

    The idea that luke has done nothing because he fights via force projection is kinda bullshit. How many force users could do what Luke does in the final fight? It is an extreme amount of power to project across the spanse between worlds. As a fan I might not like what happens to Luke. He might not be the character I expected, but he is not invalid. He is jaded by his failures of the past. I interpret his final actions as having realized the need to protect the new generation. He has failed to tutor Rey, he declined to return to the fight, and is left stranded on his island. Upon decided to take back up the fight he does the only thing he can do. Muster all his might in the force and sacrifice himself to buy the time needed for the Resistance's Escape. It even has the added literary bonus of mirroring Obi Wan's final delaying action to project the old crew.

    Episode 8 is far from my favorite Star Wars movie. However, I also don't expect much literary depth from the franchise. Episode IV is just The Book of Three retold in space. If you want to find a reason to deconstruct any of the Star Wars movies it is pretty easy to pick them apart.
     
    ravagekitteh and Aginor like this.
  14. Aginor
    Slann

    Aginor Fifth Spawning Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,249
    Likes Received:
    20,130
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pretty much this.
    There is a lot to criticize on TLJ, including some things they did with Luke, but at no point of the movie or afterwards do I see him emasculated. Quite the opposite. Becoming a hermit because being a failed idealist is something I'd call typically male.
    ...and typical Star Wars to boot. Obi-Wan and Yoda both failed and instead of fighting for their goals they decided to hide on some remote planet. And nobody called those two emasculated.

    ...but this isn't about Star Wars and I agree with the rest of the points raised by y'all.

    James Bond is a franchise about an uber-macho. That's what he is.
    That didn't prevent the authors from having halfway non-clichee female characters in the movies to act as a counter to the more stereotypical ones. (Pussy Galore and her flyers were pretty badass by 1960s standards, and so were those like Thumper, May Day and Xenia Onatopp, who would rival his strength and aggressiveness).

    It still is a failing franchise IMO. All the good stories obviously have been told, and it entered remake territory.

    Should they make 007 a black female or whatever? Probably not. Will it kill the franchise? Maybe. Or at least for a while. Maybe not. If it fails they will try again with some different twist. In fact I am surprised they didn't go black 007 or gay 007 first.

    Anyway, for many people it has been dead since the 1980s. ("Only Sean Connery is the real Bond" and the like)
    Do I personally care? Not really. Since Daniel Craig took over I have seen one Bond movie and I didn't really like that one either.

    Edit: funny sidenote about James Bond compared to other franchises based on books:
    If you look at the source material, then he actor that looked and acted most true to the books was..... Timothy Dalton. Who happens to be on the very bottom of the list of favourite Bond actors of almost everyone.
     
  15. ravagekitteh
    Skink Chief

    ravagekitteh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,577
    Likes Received:
    2,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While I think it’s fine for the 007 code name to be given to a black women for the duration of the upcoming film (let’s face it, we all know he’ll get it back by the end), I agree with @Scalenex that if they are planning to replace James Bond they might as well just make a brand new character that’s unencumbered by everything James Bond “should be”. I don’t often agree with Young Rippas videos (at least the ones I’ve seen), but @NIGHTBRINGER posted a good one a while back which makes the good point that just taking an existing character and changing their race/sexuality etc is a bit lazy when it comes to representation, as it basically shows they can’t be bothered to make a new character for underrepresented communities and give them proper development and instead foist an existing one onto them to make do. I still think it’s better than nothing, which may well be what we get if we carry on attacking the concept of “wokeness”, but if they do want to give better representation in that area, particularly with James Bond I think they should just make an entirely new character (or characters) - that way, they don’t need to get bogged down with past portrayals or what’s acceptable in the modern age, and just get to work on making a good character and a good film. If they want to piggy-back on the buzz around Bond, they could always set it in the same universe and have it as a spin off - if the new 007 character is good enough, I could quite easily see her having a spin-off film or tv-series, which would be able to take a far more modern approach than typical Bond would allow.

    Oh and by the way @Scalenex, Mortal Engines is actually based on a book (series) by Phillip Reeve, so there isn’t even that these days!

    PS: Speaking of him earlier, I’m surprised @NIGHTBRINGER has yet to make a proper statement in this thread given his prior track record and the fact he kickstarted the discussion in the first place - I would have thought you would have a lot to say on some of the questions and points raised so far! To be clear, my message at the beginning wasn’t meant to at all dissuade you from joining in the conversation - likewise though, if you’re a bit bored of the long political debates we’ve been having and want to leave this one, that’s completely fine as well! :)
     
    LizardWizard likes this.
  16. pendrake
    Skink Priest

    pendrake Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,764
    Likes Received:
    5,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And they have long since exhausted the supply of story titles, plotlines, and supporting characters created by Fleming.
     
    ChapterAquila92 and LizardWizard like this.
  17. pendrake
    Skink Priest

    pendrake Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,764
    Likes Received:
    5,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People like to say this. Russians like to say this. But that does not make it true.


    If it walks like a BEAR, and it growls like a BEAR, ...it’s probably a Bear.
     
  18. NIGHTBRINGER
    Slann

    NIGHTBRINGER Second Spawning

    Messages:
    77,525
    Likes Received:
    248,453
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Call it a mercy :cool:

    Joking aside...
    It's easier to let history do the work for me. The "Get Woke, Go Broke" train has been humming along quite nicely as of late (Terminator, Charlie's Angels, Galaxy's Edge, Solo, Batwoman, etc.). The last loss we took was Captain Marvel (which I speculate was due to the fact that it was coming off the second highest grossing MCU film and was leading into the highest grossing MCU film). If the next Captain Marvel movie also turns out to be a success, then I'll have to admit as much (although it has not been scheduled in phase 4).

    It's the same reason why I didn't take part in your previously created thread discussing Jillette (pun intended). That war was already won. My side already throat punched the opposition and left it gasping in agony. There was no point in beating a dead horse.

    In the case of Bond, I think my theory will prevail, but I'll own up to it if I am wrong. If I am right though, I already have a meme/gif in mind to celebrate (gloat). So if you see this thread resurrected in a few months, it would probably be best to avoid it. :angelic:

    Doesn't explain why they are doing it with the MCU, which is the single highest grossing film franchise of all time. Or Star Wars.

    Also, I do not believe your theory of "Then we have a 10% chance of saving it as opposed to a 0% chance of saving it." is a sound one. That would more accurately equate to a 10% chance of making money and consequently 90% chance of losing money (ignoring the very rare event of breaking even). Those aren't very good odds as an investor. You'd be better off betting it in a Casino at that point, as those odds would be more favourable than 10%.
     
  19. NIGHTBRINGER
    Slann

    NIGHTBRINGER Second Spawning

    Messages:
    77,525
    Likes Received:
    248,453
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What your looking for are Egalitarians then. Not Feminists (and equally not MGTOW).
     
  20. LizardWizard
    OldBlood

    LizardWizard Grand Skink Handler Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,286
    Likes Received:
    9,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would be an alternative interpretation of the word feminism apart from its common usage. As feminism is an argument for women's rights based upon the equality of the sexes.
     

Share This Page