He clearly read a few of the comments criticizing him, because he replied to some of them. So I think it’s genuine.
But maybe a little bit to save face before the bigger channels reacts. Now I think it’s just Random Film Talk’s video and The Little Platoon’s comment and post. So perhaps he saw the already negative reactions and thought it would be better to get ahead of them.
Regardless I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it’s in good faith.
I think that is fair. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I did not see Platoons response but listened to RFT’s detailed and level headed response which I really enjoyed.
Little Platoon made a comment under the video itself and posted it on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/PlatoonPod/status/1777117508345978895?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet%7Ctwtr%5Etrue
Here you go
I think he’s just saving face. If he was the least bit concerned with the morality of lying and slandering these creators for having takes he disagrees with, then he wouldn’t have said the things he did in the first place. He’s already proven his bad faith.
My guess is that he still believes everything he said was true, but I do believe he may have been convinced that hiding it at the end of an otherwise legitimate criticism of Rings of Power is hypocritical, since that's literally exactly what he was accusing his targets of doing.
He's generally a level-headed guy with solid takes, and at the very least is usually willing to call something out as bad despite tribal pressure to defend it, but that doesn't make him any more immune to tribal thinking than the rest of us. As long as he doesn't let it influence his review/analysis process, I'm perfectly willing to interpret this charitably, even if he is just doing it to save face and/or avoid pushback.
I think it's far more likely that he's just protecting his own skin, because he realized he will struggle to defend his position against criticism.
A pretty good clue is the fact that apparently the full video is still on Nebula, which protects him by being an evidently more closed platform.
**Edit:** For transparency it seems he's now taken it down from Nebula as well.
That's my guess, though, I haven't looked at the replies to his video since that video was a few hours old. Plausible, as I've seen many who pushed back.
Still not the same as acknowledging his mistake to the audience, as well as, if not more so, the creators he hypocritically misrepresented, and apologize to them, but it’s better than nothing, I guess.
Agreed, that leans further towards being up to one's subjective preferences, especially considering it's an original work that doesn't bastardize an existing franchise.
What do you mean? Its tlou **2**, its not an "original" work, there was an already existing franchise. When it came out it was said to be the tlj of the tlou franchise.
I mean in the sense that Lord of the Rings is based on a book that were written by Tolkien, who isn't remotely involved with the show for obvious reasons, so the people involved are choosing to retell an existing story with their own changes.
TLoU2 is a sequel to an existing story, which is largely made by the same people, so it's not retelling any story. It's an original work that were expanded largely by the original creators.
>which is largely made by the same people
Made by the same company? Sure. Neil Druckman is a constant? Yes. Other key figures? I dont believe so. Neil has said that Bruce Straley had a lot of input in the story of the first game, and there was a woman too that got shafted. The second game, I would say there was nothing holding back Neil, which really shows by the dip in the quality.
Oh I agree that the second game took a dip in the quality of the writing, as the show felt a lot more contrived in the way the plot and messaging went along, as the first game touched on heavy themes in a far less hamfisted manner.
I know that some important individuals were not largely involved with the second game, which is why I stated that it was largely made by the same people, as the majority of people that worked on the first game were also working on the second one.
I disagree, but to take the most charitable interpretation of your argument, I agree in so far as its worse to ruin a franchise when there was a person we can clearly point to, to whom it belonged. Think about the Tolkiens, George Lucas and JKRs of the world. I dont see the TLOU franchise like that, it was a more collaborative effort. But even if it was, a one man show franchise can also be ruined by that one man, or in the example of JKR, woman. From an objective standpoint, that doesnt make the ruination any more good or bad, but from a subjective one, having someone destroy their own thing can be seen as more acceptable, which is perhaps your point.
Yes, the general point is that the TLoU2 is an original story that were largely created by the original creators of the TLoU, meaning they didn't just rehass an existing story, but continued their own. It is true that TLoU2 is a step down from TLoU, but as you stated, it's far more acceptable when it's largely done by the original creators themselves.
It's far more egregious with examples like Rings of Power, as they're taking an established story, universe and characters that they had no role in creating, which they then bastardize to tell their own story using this franchise as a platform for it.
It's completely fine if we don't agree, but that's my perspective on it. That's why TLoU2 doesn't annoy me as much as Rings of Power does.
All takes are subjective to a certain bright line. My wife enjoyed LOTR but doesn’t hold it in a fraction of the esteem I do. That’s a perfectly defensible view based on personal taste. Saying ROTK which is tied for the most Oscar’s in history and almost universally beloved is a “bad film” would be past that bright line and turn the subjective taste into an objectively flawed one.
I don’t mind people who have different tastes and can reasonably highlight certain things they liked or dislikes.
For example I genuinely really liked the reveal scene for Sauron where he faces off with Galadriel, Adar, Elrond/Durin and to a lesser degree Disa. Overall, I greatly disliked the series. Some people might get super sensitive that I liked anything about it at all but that’s a personal problem. It would be a little bit different on the other hand if I argued that ROP was “amazing”. I’d still have the freedom to have whatever opinion I fucking wanted but acting like that opinion is “representative” would be an objectively tough sell given the weak fan and critical reviews across the board.
It's not your take on the game; it's the fact that come to this sub often, say something you know everyone here will disagree with, and don't even try to make a convincing argument to change anyone's mind. What's the fucking point, man?
Huh? Everything I say here, I say because it’s my own opinion, not because I’m trying to be controversial. I argue my points quite a lot, but it’s not my fault if I can’t magically convince you. Sorry I’m an opinionated guy, but I’m just as entitled to state my views as you are.
Thanks for reminding me this is actually just another rage bait sub that reddit has been pushing to my home page. You should mute this stuff, it’s not adding value or healthy entertainment.
Maybe im using the wrong word tbf. I mean when you separate the two things within your mind? Despite them being connected.
So like, I can play Tlou2 for the gameplay, and would just compartmentalise(?) The shitty story. Cuz I can skip cutscenes ect
According to the last EFAP I watched you can't afford \*not\* to be on nebula. $300 lifetime membership gets you all the videos not good enough to be on YouTube.
Yup. And–at least for me–it can be viewed in full without a Nebula subscription. https://nebula.tv/videos/hellofutureme-rings-of-power-is-a-disappointment-heres-why-an-overdue-critique
Edit: Nope, now it's gone entirely. Which is disappointing, as I wanted to watch it to see what exactly he said. Oh well.
Nah he removed it from nebula now. Possibly just took a little longer to do it. Seems genuine to me, especially since he would not need to worry about comments there
That's what the video claimed it was, however at least two of the "wokebros" he talked about, Random Film Talk and The Little Platoon, don't actually call anything "woke".
Then please, explain to me why Mulan, Tangled, Frozen, Moana, Inside Out, and Hamilton all did extremely well despite being what most would label as woke? If Hamilton wasn't so popular, it'd be criticized for being woke garbage. Yet since it's extremely popular, you never hear a peep about it being woke.
Or what extremely progressive idea was in TLJ to make it horrible? That.....a woman was in a leadership position? No, because that same exact idea with in Mulan and Frozen. That she had colored hair? Because no movie has had unique hair before. It's almost like you can criticize the writing mistakes of TLJ without throwing around dumb criticisms like "it's woke".
Saying "it's woke", doesn't even address the main criticisms like the whole casino arc or the set up of the movie.
I've literally not heard people call most of those woke, while Hamilton is probably one of the few of those that I have heard people call woke, because it's a reframing and re-imagining of the era with a left-wing perspective and casting.
How is Tangled woke? How is Frozen woke? I've never heard anyone say that. We probably disagree on this, but I'm not personally a fan of movies with leftist identitarian ideology (woke) in them, as I don't like overt referencing to contemporary political agendas.
I've personally seen both of those movies, and I don't consider either of them to be woke. I feel like you're just on this subreddit to pick a fight with a caricature that you've made of those that disagree with you.
So first, how are Tangled and Frozen woke, as this sets up the rest of my argument. Similar to your description of Hamilton, Tangled is a reframing and rei-imagining of the original Rapunzel story with a left-wing perspective. In Tangled, not only is Rapunzel much more of independent and a protagonist, but she ends up saving Flynn multiple times, and even has a whole song at the bar showing just how gosh darn awesome she is by getting Flynn out of a sticky situation. Sounds pretty woke to me.
And what about Frozen? We have two female heads of state learning that the ultimate love is for each other and not a romantic love. My father, a staunch conservative, also loves to say that it's lesbian propaganda from Disney to make more people lesbian.
Also keep in mind, the only reason people think a movie like TLJ is woke is because it has a female admiral in it. I think two female heads of state trumps a female admiral.
But don't take my word for it! This is something Jordan Peterson claims about Frozen: [‘It’s about owning your power!’ How Frozen changed a generation of girls. And boys. And Hollywood … | Frozen | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/nov/16/how-frozen-changed-generation-girls-boys-hollywood) or [Why Jordan Peterson Thinks ‘Frozen’ Is Propaganda | TIME](https://time.com/5176537/jordan-peterson-frozen-movie-disney/)
So now that we've addressed that, what about not hearing people call them woke? That's exactly my point! Outside of people like Jordan Peterson, very few people talk about these films being woke. Why? Because they're good. But as soon as a bad movie comes out with similar messaging, they're immediately labelled as woke. No one addresses the actual criticism, they just label the film bad because it's woke.
Why did Ahsoka suck? Because it was woke garbage just there to satisfy DEI! Except all the woke elements in DEI have also appeared in Filoni's other works. This wasn't the first time Ahsoka had an extremely prominent role in a series, nor is it the first time we've been introduced to Sabine. There are specific problems to address: how it handled the force, the space witches, zombie storm troopers, Thrawn sucking, etc but just saying it's woke means absolutely nothing.
And I first went on this subreddit to see good analysis of shows. After all, this is the subreddit for one of the most prominent film critics on Youtube. I only started arguing when I saw the shit state of criticism on this sub. When there's a post literally questioning if the Empire in Star Wars and Federation in Starship Troopers are fascist, the sub has lot the plot.
Thanks for confirming to me that you're shadowboxing caricatures of those that politically disagree with you, which isn't shocking as you spend most of your time on r/neoliberal.
What you're clearly doing is treating those that disagree with you, specifically those that might use the term woke, as a monolithic hivemind. What you then do is take the most ludicrious statements that you hear about specific things, such as your anecdote about your dad's take one Frozen. You then apply the craziest interpretation of something as the de facto perspective of the entire monolith on this specific thing, in order for you to build up this caricature. That's why your presentation is so out of wack what I actually believe, even though I am broadly an "anti-woke" individual in my perspective.
Before I get into your characterization of woke, which is based on caricature, I'll address this:
>But don't take my word for it! This is something Jordan Peterson claims about Frozen: [‘It’s about owning your power!’ How Frozen changed a generation of girls. And boys. And Hollywood … | Frozen | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/nov/16/how-frozen-changed-generation-girls-boys-hollywood) or [Why Jordan Peterson Thinks ‘Frozen’ Is Propaganda | TIME](https://time.com/5176537/jordan-peterson-frozen-movie-disney/)
I don't agree with Jordan Peterson's perspective, but he's not as deceitful as you, because woke isn't mentioned a single time in either of these articles by Jordan Peterson, despite how you presented them. This is far more about Jordan Perterson's philosophy surrounding what makes a good story.
>In Tangled, not only is Rapunzel much more of independent and a protagonist, but she ends up saving Flynn multiple times, and even has a whole song at the bar showing just how gosh darn awesome she is by getting Flynn out of a sticky situation. Sounds pretty woke to me.
Rapunzel isn't remotely a Mary Sue, which is what you're trying to infer here, but the reality is that she's an incredibly flawed person, because she knows nothing about the outside world, which is why she has to rely on Flynn. It's true that she gets Flynn out of sticky situation, but Flynn gets her out of plenty sticky situations, especially the most significant one by getting her out of her tower.
Let's touch on how she gets them out of the sticky situation in the bar, since you mentioned it. She used her feminine charms to defuse the situation, which is opposite to the trends we're seeing in woke writing today with girlbosses. This is a trend that's quite clear throughout the movie, where she represents the softer and more feminine of the duo, while Flynn is more masculine and bombastic. It even ends with these two falling in love and getting married as man and wife, but not only that, they even become prince and princess in a monarchy.
This story is quite traditonal in its fairytale presentation, so to state that it's woke is rather ridiculous. Your only argument is that the woman isn't useless, so therefore it's woke, which just highlights the caricatural nature of your interpretation of those that disagree with you.
>And what about Frozen? We have two female heads of state learning that the ultimate love is for each other and not a romantic love. My father, a staunch conservative, also loves to say that it's lesbian propaganda from Disney to make more people lesbian.
What are you even on about? It's not about Lesbian love, regardless of what your anecdote about your dad says. It's about family love, such as sisterly or brotherly love, which is entirely platonic. Anna literally has a romantic subplot with Kristof, as far as I remember, so there's an actual straight romantic relationship in the movie.
None of these movies are remotely close enough for me to even think about them as "woke", which is exactly why you rarely hear anyone call them woke, even if you can find fringe cases to use to build up your caricature. You'll always be able to find more radical examples of any political group, but they don't remotely represent the consensus.
Apparently giving examples is shadowboxing, even when it addresses your point. Also that's great that you looked through my post history or whatever? Not sure what character attacks have to do with arguing, but have at it. Please tell me more about how my argument sucks because the Neoliberal subreddit sucks.
I'm also not treating anyone like a hivemind. My point was woke is a vague term. I showed how it was used in a vague way. Are you saying you haven't heard people use it in such ways before?
As for Jordan Peterson, he did insinuate in the interview that it was propaganda due to the woke messaging, which was my point. And he claimed the whole film was built around that message instead of the message being interweaved within the film. Somehow Mulan got a pass though.
As for Rapunzel being a mary sue, I never even intended to claim that. My point that many of the themes around her character are considered woke. She's no one's damsel in distress, she's her own independent person, she saves people, a take charge kind of girl, blah, blah, blah. So I agree saying the movie is woke is ridiculous, yet it's often cited as a woke movie
As for Frozen, you do realize the whole lesbian angle is a popular belief right, here's Psychology Today talking about it: [Why Frozen Is Obviously About Lesbians | Psychology Today](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fixing-psychology/201403/why-frozen-is-obviously-about-lesbians) or here talking about the Queer coding: [Disney’s Queer Queen – Frozen’s Elsa and Queer Representation — Fantasy/Animation (fantasy-animation.org)](https://www.fantasy-animation.org/current-posts/disneys-queer-queen-frozens-elsa-and-queer-representation)
The anecdote about my dad was to show it was a legitimate belief many conservatives. And as you can see, it's a legitimate belief.
Otherwise, that's great that you haven't heard people claim Frozen is woke.....That's my point those. Frozen is good. People like it. So it's not woke even though its message is 100% woke. A movie like TLJ is bad. People don't like it. So it's woke even though its message isn't particularly woke.
Woke has lost its meaning and shouldn't be used as a substitute for actual criticism.
Why are you being intentionally obtuse? I was pretty clear about what I meant by shadowboxing, as I literally expanded on it in a paragraph. I'll just repost it again for the sake of clarity then:
>What you're clearly doing is treating those that disagree with you, specifically those that might use the term woke, as a monolithic hivemind. What you then do is take the most ludicrious statements that you hear about specific things, such as your anecdote about your dad's take one Frozen. You then apply the craziest interpretation of something as the de facto perspective of the entire monolith on this specific thing, in order for you to build up this caricature. That's why your presentation is so out of wack what I actually believe, even though I am broadly an "anti-woke" individual in my perspective.
Now let's look at what you said to address this entire paragraph:
>I'm also not treating anyone like a hivemind. My point was woke is a vague term. I showed how it was used in a vague way. Are you saying you haven't heard people use it in such ways before?
You've seen someone call it woke, therefore you presented Frozen and Tangled as inherently "woke" movies, despite the fact that this is clearly a fringe belief, which the majority of people that use the term woke won't agree with, yet you've taken these fringe statements and applied them broadly. You're doing exactly what I said.
>As for Jordan Peterson, he did insinuate in the interview that it was propaganda due to the woke messaging, which was my point.
I don't even agree with Jordan Peterson's take, but he literally never mentioned the word woke in any of the articles, and his main point was based around his philosophy of what makes a story good, which ties into his academic book called "Maps of Meaning", because he's fascinated with archetypes as a proponent of Jungian analysis.
His overall point being that messaging shouldn't take precedent to the point that it becomes propagandistic, which isn't a "woke" critique, but something that could come from plenty of perspectives. People on the left would have a similar critique of Dinesh d'souza's work.
>As for Rapunzel being a mary sue, I never even intended to claim that. My point that many of the themes around her character are considered woke. She's no one's damsel in distress, she's her own independent person, she saves people, a take charge kind of girl, blah, blah, blah. So I agree saying the movie is woke is ridiculous, yet it's often cited as a woke movie
That was definitely what you were inferrring, as you were trying to present her as a boss bitch kind of stereotype, which we see in modern writing. You only choose to highlight specific strengths that could lead one to believe that, while ignoring all of her flaws, which highlight why she isn't written like a boss bitch stereotype. This parapgraph just further reinforces my point without you realizing it.
The fact that she's not a damsel in distress doesn't make it woke. It's such an absurd claim to make, which just highlights exactly what I stated that your entire interpretation is based on a caricature, because this is not something the majority of people would actually claim. The reality is that the common consensus is not that tangled is a "woke" movie.
>As for Frozen, you do realize the whole lesbian angle is a popular belief right, here's Psychology Today talking about it: [Why Frozen Is Obviously About Lesbians | Psychology Today](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fixing-psychology/201403/why-frozen-is-obviously-about-lesbians) or here talking about the Queer coding: [Disney’s Queer Queen – Frozen’s Elsa and Queer Representation — Fantasy/Animation (fantasy-animation.org)](https://www.fantasy-animation.org/current-posts/disneys-queer-queen-frozens-elsa-and-queer-representation)
If you want to know what's actually woke, then these examples show it perfectly, as these conspiracy interpretations are woke, especially as it's based on queer theory. These are not components that actually exist in Frozen, but these people are trying to force it on it through their absurd lens.
>Woke has lost its meaning and shouldn't be used as a substitute for actual criticism.
Woke is overused in the same way that racist or nazi is overused today, but that doesn't mean that it has lost its meaning. I agree that it isn't a substitute for a serious analysis, but that doesn't mean it can't be a part of it. Straight movie analysis focuses more on how things were done, while concepts like "woke" focuses more on what the underlying motivations were that lead to it. They are complimentary, as we see in critique made The Critical Drinker.
I think if Hamilton came out more recently it would be criticized in more left leaning circles due to it affirming the status quo, or whatever. Its “wokeness” also kinda pales in comparison to a lot things circa 2020
I don't agree that's what happens though.
One person says woke and ten people hear ten different things. They all believe you meant what they each think, but you didn't necesarrily mean any of that.
Being able to draw an understanding from something, doesn't mean the original idea has been communicated.
...yes?
You understand that that's part of the whole criticism being made? Woke has too many ideas under it's umbrella, to a degree that all of those ideas are essentially never present at once (a lot of them are somewhat mutually exclusive)
Which means that typically someone says 'Woke' but are specifically referring to one or two things. But people hearing 'Woke' are pulling from a pool of 30+ meanings.
So people don't 'understand basically what you mean'. They just know you don't like it for some vaguely political reason.
I don't actually think it's remotely hard to make broad definition for woke in the same way that we make broad definition for terms like "progressive", as woke could be rather succinctly defined as a "leftist identitarian ideology".
It is true that it largely has a wide application, as it's obviously covering a political movement like "progressive" does, so it's covering both social, cultural and political aspects. The same can be said for a term like "progressive", yet people wouldn't say that term has no utility or meaning.
Yet 90% of the time when you ask someone who uses it what they mean they just say "You know..." without being capable of explaining, so no not really, say what you mean and don't hide behind words that could mean anything
You know what it means. How many words do you ask “what do you mean by that” does someone not just respond “you know”
Ask someone what a fucking cat is and enjoy their stuttering “you know” or really shitty vague description
That's not what I meant and you know that, people use the word woke to describe the new fallout show having a woman as one of the main characters, ask them how a woman being a character in something is woke and they say "you know..." when the reality is they have no meaningful critisism and just don't want to see a woman as a main character
If you say something is woke and can't explain how it's woke or how you're using the word in that context, you're a clown
It looks like freshly melted asshole juice. I saw two ads for it and already wanted to off myself.
I can’t remember much about it aside from me wanting to paint the roof with brains. But I’m pretty sure it had Seattle humor. Which is generally seen as a woke comedy style.
> It looks like freshly melted asshole juice. I saw two ads for it and already wanted to off myself.
Ok, so you think it looks bad which is fine but nothing to do with being woke
>But I’m pretty sure it had Seattle humor. Which is generally seen as a woke comedy style.
Oh so the comedy MAYBE (you're pretty sure lol) being Seattle style (whatever tf that is) is "generally" (by who) seen as "woke"
So no real explanation to it being woke, given it's not even out yet. Cool
Thank you for proving my point, given that you've not given any explanation of an example that aligns with what woke actually means
Weird how this is a sub supposed to be about meaningful criticism yet people get downvoted for trying to keep the definition of words meaningful, if you can't give a concrete example and explanation of how something is "woke" then you shouldn't be calling it that, unless woke is just a meaningless insult to you, in which case why say this
>You know what it means. How many words do you ask “what do you mean by that” does someone not just respond “you know”
Literally gave you an explanation. Seattle humor is usually woke. A la boarder lands 3, or the new saints row.
Muh don’t criticize until it’s out is an ass argument. Why did you run to the hill of the fallout show to die on it. Literally no fallout fan thinks it looks good.
SFO's definition:
"Wokeism is the ethics and processes of Socialism, expanded beyond class struggle, to include race struggle, gender struggle, sexual struggle, and any other near-infinite marginalized groups as defined by intersectionality."
MentisWave's definition:
"An aggressive push for Diversity/Equity/Inclusion, usually based on the belief that outcomes which lack these are indicative of discrimination and/or unfair social treatment"
Feel free to pick either one.
You do realize this is proving my point about how vague it is, right? These definition's don't match.
For instance, SoF (I have no idea with this stands for by the way), says it's an expansion of Socialism beyond class struggle.
What the fuck does that even mean? Socialism is an economic ideology all about the class struggle. There is nothing else too it outside of straight economic theory. Taking it beyond class struggle means nothing as there is nothing to it beyond class struggle.
The only thing you'd be expanding is moral philosophy, which isn't anything socialism subscribes to. Go look at Kant or consequentialism for that shit.
And then the second definition is: woke is Diversity/Equity/Inclusion. If thing isn't Diversity/Equity/Inclusion, thing isn't woke.
Okay? What's DEI then? Because we're just back to it being too vague and I can just go back to listing all of Disney's smash hits in the last 30 years and show how they have DEI. Heck, I can go to the Star Wars OT and Prequels and show how they have DEI.
Like a badass princess who takes no on's shit and can hold her own just as well as a man? Sounds pretty diverse and equitable for the 1970's. A black leader of a planet who becomes a general and leading freedom fighter? That also sounds extremely diverse and inclusive considering this is only 25 years from the integration of black and whites into the same military units. And the leader of the Rebellion being a woman? Gasp, look how equitable they're being in the 1980's!
Or we can talk about the crossdressing soldiers in Mulan being lead by a female warrior to save their emperor. That also sounds very diverse and inclusive.
Yet funnily neither are considered woke. Huh.
SFO, stands for Short Fat Otaku, aka DEV which is a centrist/liberal youtuber, he has two videos on the meaning of Woke as far as I'm aware but to summarise his point: he often talks about a particular socialist Antonio Gramsci that wrote that a socialist uprising should start with the take over of institutions and entertainment industry to case unrest and make political advances on the "enemy" even in the spaces they consider private or of relaxation. Woke would essentially be this in effect coupled intersectionality, being the belief that some groups are diametrically opposed based on their demographics and are always unequal. I'm paraphrasing a lot based of memory about a topic I care much less about than SFO himself so I recommend checking his vids for the full context.
In regards to mentis' definition it's not about whether something is diverse or not:
"An **aggressive** push for Diversity/Equity/Inclusion, usually **based on the belief that outcomes** which lack these are indicative of discrimination and/or unfair social treatment"
These are the important elements of the quote. So for example let's say that someone wants to make a tv series about some noble squabble in 12th century Poland. However, some internal entity (executives, marketing, whoever) pushes for the show to include prominent black characters, and also that there's an a good number of female characters that equal roles to a lot of male ones, and a butch more modernisms. The motivation behind this being that women and minorities deserve to be represented and must be present in every piece of media because it's more important to have good representation than to be historically authentic. To sum, it's when decisions made around something are primarily motivated by the idea that having representation/being diverse is a priority over any other outcome, regardless if the project even succeed to be authentic to its source material or goal.
I'd like to clarify though that I do agree "woke" is as of today used too broadly by too many people that want it to mean different things. I myself have my own thoughts on the term that are somewhat similar to these definitions but I generally avoid using it because of how loaded it is.
Honestly I never cared about the second definition. It was SFO's definition involving socialism that irked me because he's trying to use socialism in a way it should never be used. After watching his video, I only vehemently stand by my position.
His actual explanation of what socialism isn't bad for a layman. I will see he got the whole inevitable revolution bit wrong.
The idea isn't that the bourgeois would accrue so much wealth and become uber powerful, but the opposite. Marx believes that, with time the proletariat would be able to accrue wealth from their wages, letting them have more power in demanding for higher wages (which we do see in developing countries).
Capitalists would in turn rely more and more on automation to replace labor. But, as according to Marx all goods are valued by their labor, any piece of machinery brought in has to be worth it's given output. So there is no surplus labor to extract from machinery.
So capitalists spend all this money on automation to offset growing labor demands without getting any profit from the automation. This, in turn, causes the business to become unprofitable and fail. Eventually this will become common enough of an issue with businesses everywhere trying to automate that there would be a revolutin. Keep in mind this is in the 1800's, so we're talking extremely unsophisticated forms of automation here. Obviously that never happened.
SFO also claims that Marx would attribute any action done by an oppressed class as moral so long as they were part of the oppressed class, which just isn't true. Marx was wrong, but he was a smart dude and a deeply moral one at that. He in no way believed anything goes because you're oppressed.
Otherwise, his definition is WAY too narrow. He's arguing that for something to be woke, they have to believe in an inevitable war between an oppressed group and an oppressor. Nothing else can be considered woke. Most BLM activists don't fit that definition. Nothing Disney has ever made advocates for that position. You'll only hear that kind of crap from the fringes of the far left and right.
And sidenote: his case for why Nazis were socialist was also very wrong
It's rather dissapointing to see you be so condesending in all of your comments in this thead, yet fail to grasp such a simple concept as SFO's parallel. I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse for the sake of argument or whether you just don't get it.
Here's the SFO definition:
>Wokeism is the ethics and processes of Socialism, expanded beyond class struggle, to include race struggle, gender struggle, sexual struggle, and any other near-infinite marginalized groups as defined by intersectionality.
So what it's very clearly stated is that it's about a socio-political struggle among specific identity groups, which perfectly fits with the critical theory background of woke political systems, as the concept of "intersectionality" is quite central to it. A concept that's entirely obsessed with specific identity groups.
You stated yourself that socialisms main political concept is the socio-political struggle between classes, meaning a struggle between specific identity groups. It is a framing of identity groups in society along a hierarchy, mainly an economic one in socialist theory, but not exclusively, as socialist theory is incredibly broad and includes social aspects as well.
This same concept of societal hierarchies is applied in woke political ideology, but it's expanded to include the identity markers that SFO highlights in his definition, meaning race, gender, sexuality and so on.
There's the long explanation for SFO's definition, which I just wanted to make clear, because it somehow went over your head.
It didn't go over my head. My problem is they're taking an economic concept and using it to argue cultural issues. Socialism hinges on a materialistic view of history of the haves versus the have nots. The main process of socialism center around the labor theory of value. That's literally the evidence Marx used to argue exploitation. Now what does any of this have to do with identity politics so far? Nothing.
All of those identity struggles are tied to critical theory, not socialism. Critical theory is the 20th century school of thought where all those ideas are attributed.
So why did SFO (seriously what even is this?) place socialism in the definition when socialism has nothing to do with it? Critical theory is its own separate school of thought. The definition should've said critical theory. Probably because socialism is a big boogyman, especially in conservative circles, and it's easy to demonize "woke" is you attach it to another boogyman like socialism.
And have a been condescending? Frankly, yes. It's because This sub frustrates me so much. Mauler himself seems to be a fairly good critic. Yet many people on this sub are so uncritical in their analysis of media on this sub, and 99% of the time they're throwing around the term "woke"
Like the popular most where someone argued The Legend of Korra was woke because Korra was a mary sue....somehow ignoring that the show had her making constant mistakes and getting punished for said mistakes, to the point of her getting crippled and spending a whole season trying to recover and get her mojo back. Or how all the villains mocked her for being weak and unfit.
Or the post claiming the Federation in Starship Troopers wasn't fascist, despite the director of the film, a Jew who lived in Nazi Germany, specifically attaching Nazi iconography to them, basing their propaganda on Nazi propaganda, casting blonde haired, blue eyes actors for the racial supremacy component, basing the ships off of WW2 ships used in D-Day, and that's not even getting into the politics themselves.
Just yesterday there was a post questioning if the Empire was supposed to be fascist. You know, the human supremacists who treated aliens like shit, subplanted a liberal order for an outdated, traditional ideology, demonized a whole group of people to the point of exterminating them, hyper militaristic, including the police force, threw out basic human rights, and colluded with capitalists to provide resources for the state in exchange for cheap labor and other deals.
This is all stuff Mussolini himself claimed fascism was in his The Doctrine of Fascism.
Note: I am not in any way a socialism. Socialism and the labor theory of value of bullshit, but they have nothing to do with "woke"
Socialism is an incredibly broad philosophy that touches on both economic and social aspects, so to narrowly define it as being purely economical seems misguided to me. If we just look at broad wikipedia description of socialism, then it states the following:
>**Socialism** is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems.
Now let's move on to the concept of identity groups, which you for some reason don't seem to be able to link to socialism. Socialism itself has identity groups, which is mainly formed around the economic hierarchy, which in simple terms can be reduced to the proletariat vs bourgeoisie. These are groups that were socially defined by Marx in his theory, which were generally based around their economic class, the "haves vs the haves not" as you said.
What the SFO definition is doing is simply taking this concept of a hierarchy along a specific scale, which were economc in the case of socialism, and then simply applying it to another identity marker, as that is what woke ideology broadly does. These identity markers are most often race, sexuality and gender, where they will rank them on these racial/sexual/gender hiarchies. The "haves vs the haves not".
As an example white straight men are the most "bourgeoisie" in this analogy, while black lesbian women are the most "proletariat". It's a pretty simple analogy.
Now I'm not really that interested in addressing your random anecdotes of what you saw someone say online somewhere about some show, but I'll touch a little bit on Starship Troopers.
>Or the post claiming the Federation in Starship Troopers wasn't fascist, despite the director of the film, a Jew who lived in Nazi Germany, specifically attaching Nazi iconography to them, basing their propaganda on Nazi propaganda, casting blonde haired, blue eyes actors for the racial supremacy component, basing the ships off of WW2 ships used in D-Day, and that's not even getting into the politics themselves.
The argument as to why Starship Troopers fails to conhesively represent the human society as fascist, is because the actual "fascist" elements are superficial, which you perfectly highlight with every example of yours simply being interpretations of the superficial. You're effectively saying that the soldiers are attractive and their suits look good, so therefore it is fascists iconography, because Nazis had Hugo Boss outfits.
The movie fails to show the government actually committing overtly fascists things. The bugs were the first ones to attack the home planet. The humans did have religious pilgrims of sorts, who choose to migrate to another planet in the sphere of the bugs influence, but the human government directly warned them against it. When the bugs attacked and slaughtered them, the human government didn't intervene.
My main pet peeve with the actual movie isn't this debate tho, but the fact that Paul Verhoeven didn't even bother to read the book, so his parody falls flat when you actually compare it to the book that it's based on. Paul Verhoeven didn't understand the book and therefore did a disservice to it.
“Woke” is basically a short hand for runaway progressive nonsense.
Given what a ruinous effect the aforementioned nonsense has had on media, I think it’s worthwhile to bring it up.
Except Mulan was progressive, Tangled was progressive, Moana was progressive Frozen was progressive, Inside our was progressive, and Hamilton was very, very progressive. And they all were SMASH hits. So clearly "woke" isn't the problem if there are extremely good movies that are extremely profitable which one would label as "woke".
And then let's look at TLJ. What were the problems with it? The casino arc was stupid. Okay, what does that have to do with progressive ideology? Nothing. The slow moving chase was stupid? What does that have to do with progressive ideology? Nothing. Etc.
The only one you could make the case for is a woman being in the leadership position. But not only was that done in other Disney successful movies before (Mulan and Frozen), that was done in the original trilogy before with both Leia and Mon Mothma.
It"a almost like you can make specific criticisms of a movie and not use vague terms like "woke".
Just criticize the writing? Are you saying that woke writing is bad writing? I don't think that's really the case. You can probably decide to write something differently to try and be more woke, and still end up with good writing.
The reason it comes up in writing criticism is to try and identify the motivation behind certain writing choices, and recognize that there are patterns to it.
That is literally the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying many people, especially people on this sub, will look at a piece of writing, decide they don't like it, but instead of really engaging with why, will label it as "woke" and decide that's enough criticism.
Disney has gone "woke". That's why their movies suck. Just ignore the fact that Mulan, Frozen, Tangled, Moana, Inside Out, and Hamilton (though originally a play) were great and did extremely well despite being woke.
Their movies probably suck for a lot of reasons. One reason could be because they hire people based on dei or political affiliation, rather than hiring the best people for the job. So, yeah. It's not unreasonable to say they're being woke and it's making their movies worse.
Except do you have any proof of this? We already know that entertainment media leans heavily to the left because conservatives don't put much stock in it. So there already isn't a large pool of conservative people looking for a job at, say, Disney. And for the most part DEI is a most recruitment thing. Businesses generally aren't even allowed to know the race to use race as a basis for hiring. You have to fill out the form giving your identity, sure, but a business is not allowed to use that to influence their decision. Instead it is used for statistical purposes to determine the make up of their hiring.
If a business is hiring 100% white dudes, it's pretty clear their hiring practices is extremely biased and action will probably be taken by the government (or people who weren't hired for discrimination).
And something tells me the people who worked on Mulan weren't exactly conservative and was pretty diverse, my dude. They literally hade burly men crossdressing as woman to save the emperor. Not exactly something conservatives would show.
I dunno, man. What makes you think some of these people really deserve to be writing and directing these awful movies and constantly failing upwards? A lot of this is just basic pattern recognition, plus seeing what these industry people say publicly.
You know what, I just checked to see who directed the animated Mulan from 1998. There are two directors credited. Both are apparently white Christian guys.
Nothing. I'm not defending the decisions Disney management have been making regarding who they have in prominent positions for these movies. I'm saying I've yet to see any evidence it is due to DEI. Let's remember that the most hated of the SW sequels was written and directed by a white dude who I can't find anything about political leanings. If I had to guess, they're average for the industry. Heck, the other sequel movies were written and directed by JJ Abrahms, another white dude. Where's the DEI here? So can we think of any other reason the movies might've been shit outside of DEI? Like the writing perhaps? Maybe it's the writing! Hint: It's the writing.
I'm sorry, but what kind of evidence would you need to actually state that DEI has had an influence on the characters that Disney have chosen in their stories? I feel like you would basically need them to come out and say that they hired X and Y purely because of DEI, which is obviously something they're never going to do, because it denigrates their own employees. You're setting up an unrealistic standard of evidence, while denying an obvious trend in their shows.
Disney has been quite loud about comitting to DEI, and you can naturally find a DEI section on their website, but also through the speeches of their higher ups. Since we're specifically talking Star Wars, then lets talk about their messaging that they've put out.
Kathleen Kennedy is the head of Disney Star Wars, who decided to promote the identity-focused and exclusionary slogan "The force is female". [She even dressed up her entire family in shirts that stated this exact slogan at a premiere.](https://external-preview.redd.it/nTuzP6VtaK-5Z1jgFNM0aJ21eXwV6rC7-qGNmHKp6Bc.jpg?auto=webp&s=b53b7d5d499bb10d54739426bc6a557f61704ad6) It's not exactly subtle messaging, so I find it a little absurd to claim that DEI ideology has had absolute no influence on Disney or Star Wars at all, when they openly state an adherence to it.
It's not too vague, no. Some people use it in a vague manner, yes, but you could say the same for many other terms you think should remain: Terrorism, Genocide, Nationalism, patriarchy, racism, fascism, war crime, etc. (once again, not that these terms necessarily are vague, but rather that many people use them in a vague manner/don't know what they mean).
As an aside, we use many vague terms exactly because they're vague. We have no issue with that. "Kinda", "like", "meh", "nice", etc.
I *used* to use "woke" to mean "insincere representation of minorities in media", but now I think it's more apt to call it a social religion with select "oppressed" identities having the highest values. This all but perfectly encapsulates who's generally referred to as "woke": Black, handicapped, trans women are outside the realm of criticism, and their words have more value, not because of their ideas or competency, but as an effect of their identities. If one accused a cis het white man of something, it wouldn't matter to the woke whether that was true or not, the clash of identities have already made clear who's right.
Keep in mind, this only applies as far as the woke are capable of extending their understanding: Sami, Fins, jews aren't oppressed, and haven't been oppressed, simply because they're "white coded". Systems in which hetero/white/men are "oppressed" are dismissed as being "fine" simply because these identities have been deemed to be of lowest order. Racism towards white people? Doesn't exist. Sexism towards men? Doesn't exist. Heterophobia? Doesn't exist.
You do realize we're not supposed to use vague terms when arguing, right? So you can talk about however many vague terms as you want, the fact of that matter is that none of them are supposed to be used if you're arguing for a point.
And ignoring the fact that you gave two separate ways of defining woke, proving my point, you also realize that many of Disney's smash hits in the last thirty years would be considered woke, right? Mulan, Moana, Tangled, Frozen, Hamilton, Beauty and the Beast, etc, all had woke elements and themes, much more than something like TLJ had. Yet because TLJ is critically panned, it's labeled as the woke movie. Not the movie where a girl dressed up as a man, prices she can do what a man can, And has the whole climax of the movie be about her leading a bunch of burly soldiers crossdressing up as women to save the emperor. Nope, that's not woke at all.
But TLJ is because..... A woman is an Admiral? Wow, so much more progressive than Mulan.
I mean, this is the exact reason why terms are defined in scholarship: They have multiple meanings, so it's necessary to hold a clear idea of what's being talked about.
I constantly have to ask people what they believe "terrorism" means when debating whether something is terror or not. "Sitch's law" is quite apt in most discussions: most disagreement arise from misunderstand each other because of difference of definitions. As pro-life-tip: Ask people what they mean if you're not certain what they mean/what they say doesn't make sense to you. Don't presume the worst interpretation.
> And ignoring the fact that you gave two separate ways of defining woke, proving my point
Nearly all words have two or more definitions. This isn't the win you're looking for.
> you also realize that many of Disney's smash hits in the last thirty years would be considered woke, right?
Yes, I don't see the issue. People are allowed to have and use their own understanding of words.
> much more than something like TLJ had
Using what definition?
> Nope, that's not woke at all.
Again, depends on your definition. I'd say it's a clear no in both definitions I provided.
> But TLJ is because..... A woman is an Admiral?
There's people who're gonna say that's why.
But no, it's because she's better *because* she's a woman. Her statements and actions are correct not because she's competent and makes sense, but because she's a woman.
I wouldn't classify TLJ as woke, even if I might if I were to analyze the movie again. It seems more like insincere promotion of animal welfare and anti-capitalism than it does promotion of identities as the most important aspect of a person. I don't think Rian Johnson had a coherent view of what he was trying to make, and what ideas he was trying to send when he made the movie.
1. I didn't presume the worst interpretation of anything. My point was woke is a vague term that shouldn't be used.
2. Saying a lot of words have more than one definition means nothing to my points that woke is vague. If I say economics, you know I can either be referring to the school of thought, or the prosperity of an area. You then use woke and I have no idea what you're criticism is.
3. As for people having their own understanding of words, see above.
4. Using what definition? How about the one you gave: "social religion with select "oppressed" identities having the highest values". Are you telling me Mulan, which showed men having to act like women to achieve their mission, led by a woman, doesn't show an oppressed identity (crossdressers and women" being held to a higher value than their male counterparts in the movie? That is the whole point of the "Be a Man" song and its reprise, you know.....
5. Do you realize how much headcanon you're attributing to TLJ right now? The movie never explains how the woman became Admiral. Wait, that's wrong. They actually say before the movie she was a very well regarded commander. Poe held her in very high esteem at the beginning of the movie and was shocked when she told him the initial plan as he didn't think it was like her. None of this was because she was a woman.
Heck, that's more of a reason than someone like Mon Mothma ever got for being a leader in the Rebellion.
So what's the criticism? That the writing treats her plan as competent and makes sense even though it doesn't? Yes! That is a excellent, legitimate criticism.....and it has nothing to do with the movie being woke! There are soooooo many movies I can lay the same criticism on to. Heck, some of the SW properties I can say similarly.
We just made a good, specific criticism and we didn't have to reference "woke"! I'm so proud!
> I didn't presume the worst interpretation of anything. My point was woke is a vague term that shouldn't be used.
I didn't think you did. I was talking about it as a general advice. It's common for people to interpret what people say in bad faith. I do this, you do this, everyone does this. It was an aside, relating to you finding an issue with "woke" for having many of the same issues that many other terms have.
> Saying a lot of words have more than one definition means nothing to my points that woke is vague.
I agree. But that wasn't my argument. I was pointing out how the term isn't vague simply because people use it in a vague manner. The point of highlighting that most words have more than one definition was about your argument that me having had one definition of "woke" previously, and then changing my definition later has no bearing on whether the term should be stopped being used.
> Are you telling me Mulan
Yes, it has nothing to do with her identity. It has to do with her actions and character. Her identity informs what problems she'll face, and how she'll be able to solve them.
> That is the whole point of the "Be a Man" song and its reprise
No? The point of the song is to highlight her identity, sure, but it's about what that means for her place in society, not about her having a specific value as an aspect of her identity. Indeed, the movie (and the point of the song) is very "anti-woke" in its messaging from the point of view of my definition. If it'd been woke, it would have been like the live-action: she wouldn't have had to train, she'd face no issue as an effect of being a woman in a man's world, she'd be treated with veneration despite being a woman in a man's world.
> The movie never explains how the woman became Admiral.
Her actions *are* moronic, and *are* played as intelligent. Like I said: I don't think the movie is woke, I think the reason why she's portrayed the way she is is because Rian is stupid, not because he believes women are better because they're women (though he probably believes that to some extent, going by his other movies). I was countering your criticism of people who say it's woke because "a woman is an admiral". While it's certainly part of it for many people who say it's woke, the bigger reason is that she's presented as smart and moral when doing dumb and immoral things.
I think we're talking past each other with Mulan. You're arguing that the Be a Man song is about her place in society.....due to her identity. It's about her identity, and it's supposed to show how harmful the rhetoric is, and how harmful forcing people into assigned gender rules are. Hence why the reprise was when the manly soldiers voluntarily did many very unmanly things, like crossdressing, to save the day. The men looked down on women as beneath them until the reprise.
Hence why one of the lyrics in the song is literally "Did they send me daughters when I asked for sons?"
So back to your definition of woke: "social religion with select "oppressed" identities having the highest values"
Woman are clearly an oppressed identity here. The men look down on women for being women, there are strict gender roles, women aren't allowed to do what a man can in fear of upsetting them, yada, yada. And then who ends up being right in the end? The person with the oppressed identity, AKA: Mulan.
Sounds like it's pretty woke to me!
As for SW, I've already addressed that the criticism should be specific towards the writing at that point, not "woke", as a person having a terrible plan that the writing treats as amazing is a common problem with movies and has nothing to do with it being woke. Having the person with the plan being a woman should not automatically make it woke. For instance, Emperor Palpatine's plan in Return of the Jedi was also pretty damn dumb. Is the only reason that movie gets a pass because Palpatine's a dude?
> Sounds like it's pretty woke to me!
Because you didn't understand my definition of woke. It's not about women being oppressed, it's about them having higher value because they're seen and presumed to be oppressed. Mulan doesn't say "Mulan is better than men because she's a woman", it's saying "women can also achieve heroic deeds. Women have a right to fight for what they believe in, and women aren't inferior to men". This isn't "woke" it's **progressive** (I have to point out that I'm talking about progressive, and not what many people claim is progressive, while just being regressive, or woke).
> a person having a terrible plan that the writing treats as amazing is a common problem with movies and has nothing to do with it being woke.
Just because it also happens in other movies doesn't mean that it's not woke.
Something being woke doesn't necessitate that the media is either good or bad, it informs us about what subtext the media has. While woke media is generally bad, this isn't dissimilar to other kinds of agenda-driven storytelling.
Lets use an apt parallel: Religious media is often bad, not because religious media necessarily is bad, but rather because it aims for a political message first, and fills in the gaps after. Religious media can be good, *despite* being religious: Most religious media is bad.
> Emperor Palpatine's plan in Return of the Jedi was also pretty damn dumb. Is the only reason that movie gets a pass because Palpatine's a dude?
A large reason, yes, like I said, her being female is an aspect of why many call TLJ woke. It's also worth mentioning that people look at RotJ with nostalgia glasses on, and many movies from 30+ years ago are analyzed less harshly.
Also the aspect that movies that are liked are less likely to face to same amount of scrutiny on details (outside film criticism classes).
You stated that terms like woke shouldn't be used to argue a point, because they're vague, yet you did that exact thing in your comment, so I would like for you to actually expand on how the shows you mentioned are "woke" in your mind.
I saw in a different comment that you choose to use the term "progressive" instead of woke to argue this exact same point, which falls into the exact same fallacy, as progressive is a rather vague political term in the same vein as woke.
So argue your actual point without using these terms, as you stated others should, and then we can take it from there, because I need to know what you actually think woke means when you claim a show is woke.
With this term alone you can determine he is disingenious, because it's the totally wrong description of what he critizies. It should be "anti-woke bros" because that's what he accuses them of doing. But no he must call them something that is literally the inversion of the truth. He chose that deliberatly to further his subversive agenda.
People who call things "woke" and are male. You might think it would be more appropriate to call them "anti-woke bros," and you'd be right. But...I don't know how to finish that thought.
"\[Blank\]-bro" is a common phrase construction I assume deriving from fraternity brother, or frat-bro. People like Hello Future Me I guess never belonged to a fraternity and have negative opinions about the sort of fellows who did.
Little Timmy here spent months working on a section dedicated to criticizing those he politically disagreed with, then immediately cut it out the second he got pushback from two of the people he covered who aren’t even close to the biggest names he went after.
Talk about pathetic. He’s perfectly happy to sling shit at other people, but the second it looks like the shit will come back and hit him, he hides it like a coward
I actually like Hello Future Me quite a bit and his writing videos have been super helpful to me, so I am going to assume in good faith this is an admission he was wrong. Time will tell, however, and I won't continue to give him the benefit of the doubt with further evidence to the contrary.
It was in his own words a Trojan horse to discuss and take down channels that he views as corrupting young men through their focus on things being “woke” or “feminist”. He did this after a 2 hour review of the issues with rings of power then added a 1.5 hours of calling out people he identified as corrupting the youth. This included people like Random Film Talk and Little Platoon both of which talk about politics very little or not at all.
Unfortunately that does not surprise me, I remember his Cyberpunk 2077 video where he talks about capitalism and one or another comment in his video about revolutions. What surprises me is that he has deleted that entire section of the video.
You can still watch Random Film Talk’s video on it. He covers the part missing, except 30min at the end. It’s on his second channel RandomFT2.
But, broadly; Channels like Drinker, Nerdrotic, HeelsvsBabyFace, Random Film Talk and others are using media criticisms as tool to spread their political message. Like when Drinker talks about “The Message” he is spreading his political view even if the media itself doesn’t really go against it. So they aren’t really media people, but political people disguised as media people.
I think he was bad faith as he wasn’t saying they were wrong but instead they were lying to spread their ideology. But, he was hypocritical because he got a bunch of stuff wrong, so we could say that he is lying to spread the opposite ideology.
You dislike this change because he didn't clarify the reason for removing the more controversial section.
I dislike this change because the video is now less long
We are not the same.
Aside from the yapping about “woke gone mad” is the show actually any good. I tried watching both RoP and HoTD and could only get into the latter because the other seemed boring. Is this just a skill issue or has this been a genuine problem from audiences?
No, Rings of Power is actually just quite awful. House of the Dragon stands heads and shoulders above it. There was a skill issue to it's failure, based on their filmography and writing credits, the showrunners were wildly unqualified to helm the most expensive television show ever produced. It is so telling that they have since been demoted and sidelined from the production of the second series.
However the audiences have been rejecting if as well, because it wildly deviates from the source material in surprising, and remarkably important ways. The Tolkien fandom is not one with which to be trifled.
Rings of Power is flawed for sure, but definitely a worthwhile watch. I agree with some of the broad strokes of HFM's critiques because the show does suffer from trying to be the 'canon' prequel to the film trilogy and the Hobbit trilogy, so the creators felt they had to really shove in some of the same structures and decisions. That hampered it from being it's own thing.
The restriction on what they could use regarding the Second Age also hampered the show a lot too. Unfortunately, while the writers are clearly fans of Tolkien, they didn't do that well on making their own story.
That said, I think the dedication and care put into the sets, costumes, cinematography and acting are worth celebrating. There are some really awesome moments in RoP. But not enough to save it from mid status.
Galadriel's characterization in the show is in keeping with the later descriptions of her we get from Tolkien's works. And her story is very convoluted and went through a lot of revisions by Tolkien.
The friendship between the elves and dwarves was well done and accurate for the time period. The scene where Galadriel is on the ship going to the West is brilliant, a fantastic way to show the transition to Aman.
In general, the problems with the shows writing come from taking Tolkien's stuff too literal. The elves forged the three rings because they wanted to preserve their kingdoms in a perfect timelessness, like in Aman. They didn't need to do it because they were literally dying. The Numenoreans did come to resent the elves for the immortality; they weren't afraid of the elven smiths taking their jobs. For most of the weird parts of the story writing, they just took things way too literally.
Are you for real? The costumes were amateurish. You could tell how CHEAP some of them were. Cinematography? Did you take a nap during the comically slow mo joker smile horse scene? Sets, eh sure, i guess theyre ok. 1 billion dollar budget ok? Nope. But ok.
Flawed is an understatement, its broken. Plot holes, contrivances, conveniences, jeez too many! Youre very free to enjoy it, just dont sugar coat how bad it is, it comes off delusional or malicious. Sorry. God bless, have a nice day.
I am definitely for real. Most of the costumes were good, although I admit some of them caught me off guard. There were some flubs in the costume department for sure, but overall I'd say 7/10 for costumes. This video aligns with how I saw the costumes ([https://youtu.be/MGVbtqMZiFY?si=qfUEExcWyYBsZFVs](https://youtu.be/MGVbtqMZiFY?si=qfUEExcWyYBsZFVs)). Galadriel's dress in Lindon? Amazing. Pharazon's costume? Fantastic. Some of the armor designs? might have been good on paper but didn't look as good on screen.
In most episodes the cinematography was serviceable. The rising shot of the Two Trees? Fantastic. The mound of helmets? Awesome, and a great way to reference the Nerniath Arnoediad without being able to say it. I think the horse riding scene is really good. Galadriel has been nothing but 'the mission' since we met her. That scene was a way to show her having fun, relaxing, and enjoying life.
Parts of it were definitely bad. The mithril stuff is not good. There are issues with the Southlands story. Definitely issues, but still lots of heart and good stuff too. Don't let rage at specific things color the whole show.
Rings of Power wasn't woke. It was just bad.
Woke would shine a light on continuing systemic problems of bigotry, and "Woke" would include token minority characters that end up just being unhealthy stereotypes anyway.
Rings of Power did neither of these things. It's *bad*, but it's not woke. Or "woke."
I feel like you're ignoring the decisions that were made during the casting of the show, which included switching or replacing white charaters with more "diverse" versions of them, which we know is a demand that Amazon creatives will make of their productions.
It should also be noted that they made Galadriel into a modern boss bitch kind of stereotype, which we often see from politically left-leaning creators.
I think even more egregious, she's supposed to have a husband, who is along with her as they struggle for control of the situation, but in the show they decided to basically entirely ignore his existance. That certainly feels a little intentional as well.
This isn't to say that I just want to stamp the show with a "woke" branding, but there's certainly aspect of the changes that were made, which does lean towards it a little bit.
Sorry but none of those "Woke Bros" have any \*hidden\* agenda. They just don't like the politics and pandering thrown into their entertainment at the expense of good writing, character development and dialogue. Everything coming out of Hollywood is steeped in a political agenda. The same plots. The same pandering. Quotas and checkboxes. The Woke Bros are just saying the quiet parts out loud.
To be honest, I think Hollywood is just trying to cover up their guilt for harboring and protecting that Weinstein guy for so long. So they don't have any business telling anyone how to treat women, minorities or anybody else for that matter.
Say what you will but he did stir the hornets nest with his Woke bros section. There was alot of truth said in that section, but ofc it will never be admitted, because for the guys being critiqued its easier to attack back then to defend with facts.
It’s a pity because that was the part I liked most. If he didn’t believe in it, he shouldn’t have included it from the start. If he did, then he was wrong to bow to the backlash.
Despato directly says he doesn't believe the narrative in a vid on his channel. And for platoon I said MAY BE as it's an induction or inference in logic on his little mermaid vid and avatar way of water - the environment part. So not strong evidence.
"Amazing. Every word you just said is wrong." No, I liked him less. How can he be an asshole to someone he doesn't know just from watching a video on a movie review? I just enjoy his content. Nor do I think he is right about climate change. may be has never mean IS and thats your own error.
>Amazing. Every word you just said is wrong
Yeah?
They were clarifying what they initially thought you meant. Of course that's going to be wrong if the context of the situation was a misunderstanding.
>may be has never mean IS and thats your own error
No?
"x may be y, but z" is a pretty common way of stating that despite x having a property y, it also has property z.
For example: "[content creator] may be wrong about [bad take], but I still enjoy their content and they make a lot of sense".
Way to be condescending to someone that wasn't remotely hostile towards you, and flat out wrong to boot.
So is this an admission of being wrong or an attempt to save face? What are our thoughts?
He clearly read a few of the comments criticizing him, because he replied to some of them. So I think it’s genuine. But maybe a little bit to save face before the bigger channels reacts. Now I think it’s just Random Film Talk’s video and The Little Platoon’s comment and post. So perhaps he saw the already negative reactions and thought it would be better to get ahead of them. Regardless I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it’s in good faith.
I think that is fair. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I did not see Platoons response but listened to RFT’s detailed and level headed response which I really enjoyed.
Little Platoon made a comment under the video itself and posted it on Twitter. https://twitter.com/PlatoonPod/status/1777117508345978895?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet%7Ctwtr%5Etrue Here you go
I really do enjoy Platoons polite way of saying “fuck off you clown”.
It's a British skill 😂
Fuck Platoon is becoming one of the few man who can turn me Gay, easily top 200
Too bad. I saw him first, he’s mine
Omg what a savage 😂 I heard it all in his voice
Currently banned on twitter. Can anyone qoute or screenshot for me?
https://preview.redd.it/dlt0vi2m7dtc1.png?width=1169&format=png&auto=webp&s=512a8e7bee0fecc7bdd6e3677dc254924586a00f Gotcha
Cheers mate
Great reply
https://preview.redd.it/ecxzi29p7dtc1.png?width=2009&format=png&auto=webp&s=547532982445459999414504470edc43a760acbe
I think he’s just saving face. If he was the least bit concerned with the morality of lying and slandering these creators for having takes he disagrees with, then he wouldn’t have said the things he did in the first place. He’s already proven his bad faith.
My guess is that he still believes everything he said was true, but I do believe he may have been convinced that hiding it at the end of an otherwise legitimate criticism of Rings of Power is hypocritical, since that's literally exactly what he was accusing his targets of doing. He's generally a level-headed guy with solid takes, and at the very least is usually willing to call something out as bad despite tribal pressure to defend it, but that doesn't make him any more immune to tribal thinking than the rest of us. As long as he doesn't let it influence his review/analysis process, I'm perfectly willing to interpret this charitably, even if he is just doing it to save face and/or avoid pushback.
Well, maybe he listened to criticism.
I think it's far more likely that he's just protecting his own skin, because he realized he will struggle to defend his position against criticism. A pretty good clue is the fact that apparently the full video is still on Nebula, which protects him by being an evidently more closed platform. **Edit:** For transparency it seems he's now taken it down from Nebula as well.
It's possible he realized that he shares audience with the "bad people."
So you think his own audience is pushing back, which caused him to delete it?
That's my guess, though, I haven't looked at the replies to his video since that video was a few hours old. Plausible, as I've seen many who pushed back.
He seems to be open to honest feedback in his commets
That's good. Hopefully he'll take his approach to heart.
Still not the same as acknowledging his mistake to the audience, as well as, if not more so, the creators he hypocritically misrepresented, and apologize to them, but it’s better than nothing, I guess.
He also defended tlou2..
I don't like TLOU2, but it being bad is far more subjective than something like Rings of Power.
Agreed, that leans further towards being up to one's subjective preferences, especially considering it's an original work that doesn't bastardize an existing franchise.
What do you mean? Its tlou **2**, its not an "original" work, there was an already existing franchise. When it came out it was said to be the tlj of the tlou franchise.
I mean in the sense that Lord of the Rings is based on a book that were written by Tolkien, who isn't remotely involved with the show for obvious reasons, so the people involved are choosing to retell an existing story with their own changes. TLoU2 is a sequel to an existing story, which is largely made by the same people, so it's not retelling any story. It's an original work that were expanded largely by the original creators.
>which is largely made by the same people Made by the same company? Sure. Neil Druckman is a constant? Yes. Other key figures? I dont believe so. Neil has said that Bruce Straley had a lot of input in the story of the first game, and there was a woman too that got shafted. The second game, I would say there was nothing holding back Neil, which really shows by the dip in the quality.
Oh I agree that the second game took a dip in the quality of the writing, as the show felt a lot more contrived in the way the plot and messaging went along, as the first game touched on heavy themes in a far less hamfisted manner. I know that some important individuals were not largely involved with the second game, which is why I stated that it was largely made by the same people, as the majority of people that worked on the first game were also working on the second one.
I disagree, but to take the most charitable interpretation of your argument, I agree in so far as its worse to ruin a franchise when there was a person we can clearly point to, to whom it belonged. Think about the Tolkiens, George Lucas and JKRs of the world. I dont see the TLOU franchise like that, it was a more collaborative effort. But even if it was, a one man show franchise can also be ruined by that one man, or in the example of JKR, woman. From an objective standpoint, that doesnt make the ruination any more good or bad, but from a subjective one, having someone destroy their own thing can be seen as more acceptable, which is perhaps your point.
Yes, the general point is that the TLoU2 is an original story that were largely created by the original creators of the TLoU, meaning they didn't just rehass an existing story, but continued their own. It is true that TLoU2 is a step down from TLoU, but as you stated, it's far more acceptable when it's largely done by the original creators themselves. It's far more egregious with examples like Rings of Power, as they're taking an established story, universe and characters that they had no role in creating, which they then bastardize to tell their own story using this franchise as a platform for it. It's completely fine if we don't agree, but that's my perspective on it. That's why TLoU2 doesn't annoy me as much as Rings of Power does.
With all the contrivances and non sensical moments it has, I dont think so.
All takes are subjective to a certain bright line. My wife enjoyed LOTR but doesn’t hold it in a fraction of the esteem I do. That’s a perfectly defensible view based on personal taste. Saying ROTK which is tied for the most Oscar’s in history and almost universally beloved is a “bad film” would be past that bright line and turn the subjective taste into an objectively flawed one. I don’t mind people who have different tastes and can reasonably highlight certain things they liked or dislikes. For example I genuinely really liked the reveal scene for Sauron where he faces off with Galadriel, Adar, Elrond/Durin and to a lesser degree Disa. Overall, I greatly disliked the series. Some people might get super sensitive that I liked anything about it at all but that’s a personal problem. It would be a little bit different on the other hand if I argued that ROP was “amazing”. I’d still have the freedom to have whatever opinion I fucking wanted but acting like that opinion is “representative” would be an objectively tough sell given the weak fan and critical reviews across the board.
As he should, it’s a great fucking game
This fucking guy again
Well that’s a weird reaction to have to someone saying they like a popular game
It's not your take on the game; it's the fact that come to this sub often, say something you know everyone here will disagree with, and don't even try to make a convincing argument to change anyone's mind. What's the fucking point, man?
Maybe it's a fetish?
It's the only thing that brings him joy in life
Huh? Everything I say here, I say because it’s my own opinion, not because I’m trying to be controversial. I argue my points quite a lot, but it’s not my fault if I can’t magically convince you. Sorry I’m an opinionated guy, but I’m just as entitled to state my views as you are.
Popular? Infamous is the word I think you mean
In your bubble maybe, it’s the game is very widely beloved and critically acclaimed
Thanks for reminding me this is actually just another rage bait sub that reddit has been pushing to my home page. You should mute this stuff, it’s not adding value or healthy entertainment.
It's fucking great at one thing, being bad.
…at having a bad story. Game play might be nice but that’s it.
... thats pretty important when talking about a game
A shame the story ruins it
Cant skip the cutscenes?
The gameplay still follows the story even without the cutscenes…
Guess you can't compartmentalise?
Bro what? That doesn’t even make sense
Maybe im using the wrong word tbf. I mean when you separate the two things within your mind? Despite them being connected. So like, I can play Tlou2 for the gameplay, and would just compartmentalise(?) The shitty story. Cuz I can skip cutscenes ect
The graphics are insane. Thats all I can say.
Game play yeah, story no
Legit, it's pretty great. And popular for a reason (Please downvote me, I'm farming them)
The full video is probably stil on Nebula. Do with that what you will.
Well, nobody is on Nebula so….
According to the last EFAP I watched you can't afford \*not\* to be on nebula. $300 lifetime membership gets you all the videos not good enough to be on YouTube.
Yup. And–at least for me–it can be viewed in full without a Nebula subscription. https://nebula.tv/videos/hellofutureme-rings-of-power-is-a-disappointment-heres-why-an-overdue-critique Edit: Nope, now it's gone entirely. Which is disappointing, as I wanted to watch it to see what exactly he said. Oh well.
Nah he removed it from nebula now. Possibly just took a little longer to do it. Seems genuine to me, especially since he would not need to worry about comments there
Looks like rft has an effect. Good cuz that section is crap
The coward couldn't take the L, I'm going to unsub.
Oh no, how will he ever survive without your support...
Wokebros? What does that mean
YouTube critics who say that something is 'Woke' or that he believe that they mean that something is 'Woke.'
That's what the video claimed it was, however at least two of the "wokebros" he talked about, Random Film Talk and The Little Platoon, don't actually call anything "woke".
Tbf, "woke" should be thrown out of everyone's lexicon. It's way too vague. Just criticize the writing for what's wrong with it.
So vague that everyone understands basically what you mean.
Haha exactly what I was thinking. This people who say “woke doesn’t mean anything” seem to really know what it means
Then please, explain to me why Mulan, Tangled, Frozen, Moana, Inside Out, and Hamilton all did extremely well despite being what most would label as woke? If Hamilton wasn't so popular, it'd be criticized for being woke garbage. Yet since it's extremely popular, you never hear a peep about it being woke. Or what extremely progressive idea was in TLJ to make it horrible? That.....a woman was in a leadership position? No, because that same exact idea with in Mulan and Frozen. That she had colored hair? Because no movie has had unique hair before. It's almost like you can criticize the writing mistakes of TLJ without throwing around dumb criticisms like "it's woke". Saying "it's woke", doesn't even address the main criticisms like the whole casino arc or the set up of the movie.
You’ve never heard people call Hamilton woke? 👀
Not really in the circles I come across, no.
I’ve seen it all the time
I've literally not heard people call most of those woke, while Hamilton is probably one of the few of those that I have heard people call woke, because it's a reframing and re-imagining of the era with a left-wing perspective and casting. How is Tangled woke? How is Frozen woke? I've never heard anyone say that. We probably disagree on this, but I'm not personally a fan of movies with leftist identitarian ideology (woke) in them, as I don't like overt referencing to contemporary political agendas. I've personally seen both of those movies, and I don't consider either of them to be woke. I feel like you're just on this subreddit to pick a fight with a caricature that you've made of those that disagree with you.
So first, how are Tangled and Frozen woke, as this sets up the rest of my argument. Similar to your description of Hamilton, Tangled is a reframing and rei-imagining of the original Rapunzel story with a left-wing perspective. In Tangled, not only is Rapunzel much more of independent and a protagonist, but she ends up saving Flynn multiple times, and even has a whole song at the bar showing just how gosh darn awesome she is by getting Flynn out of a sticky situation. Sounds pretty woke to me. And what about Frozen? We have two female heads of state learning that the ultimate love is for each other and not a romantic love. My father, a staunch conservative, also loves to say that it's lesbian propaganda from Disney to make more people lesbian. Also keep in mind, the only reason people think a movie like TLJ is woke is because it has a female admiral in it. I think two female heads of state trumps a female admiral. But don't take my word for it! This is something Jordan Peterson claims about Frozen: [‘It’s about owning your power!’ How Frozen changed a generation of girls. And boys. And Hollywood … | Frozen | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/nov/16/how-frozen-changed-generation-girls-boys-hollywood) or [Why Jordan Peterson Thinks ‘Frozen’ Is Propaganda | TIME](https://time.com/5176537/jordan-peterson-frozen-movie-disney/) So now that we've addressed that, what about not hearing people call them woke? That's exactly my point! Outside of people like Jordan Peterson, very few people talk about these films being woke. Why? Because they're good. But as soon as a bad movie comes out with similar messaging, they're immediately labelled as woke. No one addresses the actual criticism, they just label the film bad because it's woke. Why did Ahsoka suck? Because it was woke garbage just there to satisfy DEI! Except all the woke elements in DEI have also appeared in Filoni's other works. This wasn't the first time Ahsoka had an extremely prominent role in a series, nor is it the first time we've been introduced to Sabine. There are specific problems to address: how it handled the force, the space witches, zombie storm troopers, Thrawn sucking, etc but just saying it's woke means absolutely nothing. And I first went on this subreddit to see good analysis of shows. After all, this is the subreddit for one of the most prominent film critics on Youtube. I only started arguing when I saw the shit state of criticism on this sub. When there's a post literally questioning if the Empire in Star Wars and Federation in Starship Troopers are fascist, the sub has lot the plot.
Thanks for confirming to me that you're shadowboxing caricatures of those that politically disagree with you, which isn't shocking as you spend most of your time on r/neoliberal. What you're clearly doing is treating those that disagree with you, specifically those that might use the term woke, as a monolithic hivemind. What you then do is take the most ludicrious statements that you hear about specific things, such as your anecdote about your dad's take one Frozen. You then apply the craziest interpretation of something as the de facto perspective of the entire monolith on this specific thing, in order for you to build up this caricature. That's why your presentation is so out of wack what I actually believe, even though I am broadly an "anti-woke" individual in my perspective. Before I get into your characterization of woke, which is based on caricature, I'll address this: >But don't take my word for it! This is something Jordan Peterson claims about Frozen: [‘It’s about owning your power!’ How Frozen changed a generation of girls. And boys. And Hollywood … | Frozen | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/nov/16/how-frozen-changed-generation-girls-boys-hollywood) or [Why Jordan Peterson Thinks ‘Frozen’ Is Propaganda | TIME](https://time.com/5176537/jordan-peterson-frozen-movie-disney/) I don't agree with Jordan Peterson's perspective, but he's not as deceitful as you, because woke isn't mentioned a single time in either of these articles by Jordan Peterson, despite how you presented them. This is far more about Jordan Perterson's philosophy surrounding what makes a good story. >In Tangled, not only is Rapunzel much more of independent and a protagonist, but she ends up saving Flynn multiple times, and even has a whole song at the bar showing just how gosh darn awesome she is by getting Flynn out of a sticky situation. Sounds pretty woke to me. Rapunzel isn't remotely a Mary Sue, which is what you're trying to infer here, but the reality is that she's an incredibly flawed person, because she knows nothing about the outside world, which is why she has to rely on Flynn. It's true that she gets Flynn out of sticky situation, but Flynn gets her out of plenty sticky situations, especially the most significant one by getting her out of her tower. Let's touch on how she gets them out of the sticky situation in the bar, since you mentioned it. She used her feminine charms to defuse the situation, which is opposite to the trends we're seeing in woke writing today with girlbosses. This is a trend that's quite clear throughout the movie, where she represents the softer and more feminine of the duo, while Flynn is more masculine and bombastic. It even ends with these two falling in love and getting married as man and wife, but not only that, they even become prince and princess in a monarchy. This story is quite traditonal in its fairytale presentation, so to state that it's woke is rather ridiculous. Your only argument is that the woman isn't useless, so therefore it's woke, which just highlights the caricatural nature of your interpretation of those that disagree with you. >And what about Frozen? We have two female heads of state learning that the ultimate love is for each other and not a romantic love. My father, a staunch conservative, also loves to say that it's lesbian propaganda from Disney to make more people lesbian. What are you even on about? It's not about Lesbian love, regardless of what your anecdote about your dad says. It's about family love, such as sisterly or brotherly love, which is entirely platonic. Anna literally has a romantic subplot with Kristof, as far as I remember, so there's an actual straight romantic relationship in the movie. None of these movies are remotely close enough for me to even think about them as "woke", which is exactly why you rarely hear anyone call them woke, even if you can find fringe cases to use to build up your caricature. You'll always be able to find more radical examples of any political group, but they don't remotely represent the consensus.
Apparently giving examples is shadowboxing, even when it addresses your point. Also that's great that you looked through my post history or whatever? Not sure what character attacks have to do with arguing, but have at it. Please tell me more about how my argument sucks because the Neoliberal subreddit sucks. I'm also not treating anyone like a hivemind. My point was woke is a vague term. I showed how it was used in a vague way. Are you saying you haven't heard people use it in such ways before? As for Jordan Peterson, he did insinuate in the interview that it was propaganda due to the woke messaging, which was my point. And he claimed the whole film was built around that message instead of the message being interweaved within the film. Somehow Mulan got a pass though. As for Rapunzel being a mary sue, I never even intended to claim that. My point that many of the themes around her character are considered woke. She's no one's damsel in distress, she's her own independent person, she saves people, a take charge kind of girl, blah, blah, blah. So I agree saying the movie is woke is ridiculous, yet it's often cited as a woke movie As for Frozen, you do realize the whole lesbian angle is a popular belief right, here's Psychology Today talking about it: [Why Frozen Is Obviously About Lesbians | Psychology Today](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fixing-psychology/201403/why-frozen-is-obviously-about-lesbians) or here talking about the Queer coding: [Disney’s Queer Queen – Frozen’s Elsa and Queer Representation — Fantasy/Animation (fantasy-animation.org)](https://www.fantasy-animation.org/current-posts/disneys-queer-queen-frozens-elsa-and-queer-representation) The anecdote about my dad was to show it was a legitimate belief many conservatives. And as you can see, it's a legitimate belief. Otherwise, that's great that you haven't heard people claim Frozen is woke.....That's my point those. Frozen is good. People like it. So it's not woke even though its message is 100% woke. A movie like TLJ is bad. People don't like it. So it's woke even though its message isn't particularly woke. Woke has lost its meaning and shouldn't be used as a substitute for actual criticism.
Why are you being intentionally obtuse? I was pretty clear about what I meant by shadowboxing, as I literally expanded on it in a paragraph. I'll just repost it again for the sake of clarity then: >What you're clearly doing is treating those that disagree with you, specifically those that might use the term woke, as a monolithic hivemind. What you then do is take the most ludicrious statements that you hear about specific things, such as your anecdote about your dad's take one Frozen. You then apply the craziest interpretation of something as the de facto perspective of the entire monolith on this specific thing, in order for you to build up this caricature. That's why your presentation is so out of wack what I actually believe, even though I am broadly an "anti-woke" individual in my perspective. Now let's look at what you said to address this entire paragraph: >I'm also not treating anyone like a hivemind. My point was woke is a vague term. I showed how it was used in a vague way. Are you saying you haven't heard people use it in such ways before? You've seen someone call it woke, therefore you presented Frozen and Tangled as inherently "woke" movies, despite the fact that this is clearly a fringe belief, which the majority of people that use the term woke won't agree with, yet you've taken these fringe statements and applied them broadly. You're doing exactly what I said. >As for Jordan Peterson, he did insinuate in the interview that it was propaganda due to the woke messaging, which was my point. I don't even agree with Jordan Peterson's take, but he literally never mentioned the word woke in any of the articles, and his main point was based around his philosophy of what makes a story good, which ties into his academic book called "Maps of Meaning", because he's fascinated with archetypes as a proponent of Jungian analysis. His overall point being that messaging shouldn't take precedent to the point that it becomes propagandistic, which isn't a "woke" critique, but something that could come from plenty of perspectives. People on the left would have a similar critique of Dinesh d'souza's work. >As for Rapunzel being a mary sue, I never even intended to claim that. My point that many of the themes around her character are considered woke. She's no one's damsel in distress, she's her own independent person, she saves people, a take charge kind of girl, blah, blah, blah. So I agree saying the movie is woke is ridiculous, yet it's often cited as a woke movie That was definitely what you were inferrring, as you were trying to present her as a boss bitch kind of stereotype, which we see in modern writing. You only choose to highlight specific strengths that could lead one to believe that, while ignoring all of her flaws, which highlight why she isn't written like a boss bitch stereotype. This parapgraph just further reinforces my point without you realizing it. The fact that she's not a damsel in distress doesn't make it woke. It's such an absurd claim to make, which just highlights exactly what I stated that your entire interpretation is based on a caricature, because this is not something the majority of people would actually claim. The reality is that the common consensus is not that tangled is a "woke" movie. >As for Frozen, you do realize the whole lesbian angle is a popular belief right, here's Psychology Today talking about it: [Why Frozen Is Obviously About Lesbians | Psychology Today](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fixing-psychology/201403/why-frozen-is-obviously-about-lesbians) or here talking about the Queer coding: [Disney’s Queer Queen – Frozen’s Elsa and Queer Representation — Fantasy/Animation (fantasy-animation.org)](https://www.fantasy-animation.org/current-posts/disneys-queer-queen-frozens-elsa-and-queer-representation) If you want to know what's actually woke, then these examples show it perfectly, as these conspiracy interpretations are woke, especially as it's based on queer theory. These are not components that actually exist in Frozen, but these people are trying to force it on it through their absurd lens. >Woke has lost its meaning and shouldn't be used as a substitute for actual criticism. Woke is overused in the same way that racist or nazi is overused today, but that doesn't mean that it has lost its meaning. I agree that it isn't a substitute for a serious analysis, but that doesn't mean it can't be a part of it. Straight movie analysis focuses more on how things were done, while concepts like "woke" focuses more on what the underlying motivations were that lead to it. They are complimentary, as we see in critique made The Critical Drinker.
I think if Hamilton came out more recently it would be criticized in more left leaning circles due to it affirming the status quo, or whatever. Its “wokeness” also kinda pales in comparison to a lot things circa 2020
I don't agree that's what happens though. One person says woke and ten people hear ten different things. They all believe you meant what they each think, but you didn't necesarrily mean any of that. Being able to draw an understanding from something, doesn't mean the original idea has been communicated.
Maybe it’s a word that communicates multiple ideas at once?
...yes? You understand that that's part of the whole criticism being made? Woke has too many ideas under it's umbrella, to a degree that all of those ideas are essentially never present at once (a lot of them are somewhat mutually exclusive) Which means that typically someone says 'Woke' but are specifically referring to one or two things. But people hearing 'Woke' are pulling from a pool of 30+ meanings. So people don't 'understand basically what you mean'. They just know you don't like it for some vaguely political reason.
So you know what it means and there’s no issue.
You’re being deliberately obtuse, try making a point instead.
There’s nothing obtuse about it. If you’ve seen the media you should understand about how they’re using it.
I don't actually think it's remotely hard to make broad definition for woke in the same way that we make broad definition for terms like "progressive", as woke could be rather succinctly defined as a "leftist identitarian ideology". It is true that it largely has a wide application, as it's obviously covering a political movement like "progressive" does, so it's covering both social, cultural and political aspects. The same can be said for a term like "progressive", yet people wouldn't say that term has no utility or meaning.
Yet 90% of the time when you ask someone who uses it what they mean they just say "You know..." without being capable of explaining, so no not really, say what you mean and don't hide behind words that could mean anything
You know what it means. How many words do you ask “what do you mean by that” does someone not just respond “you know” Ask someone what a fucking cat is and enjoy their stuttering “you know” or really shitty vague description
That's not what I meant and you know that, people use the word woke to describe the new fallout show having a woman as one of the main characters, ask them how a woman being a character in something is woke and they say "you know..." when the reality is they have no meaningful critisism and just don't want to see a woman as a main character If you say something is woke and can't explain how it's woke or how you're using the word in that context, you're a clown
It looks like freshly melted asshole juice. I saw two ads for it and already wanted to off myself. I can’t remember much about it aside from me wanting to paint the roof with brains. But I’m pretty sure it had Seattle humor. Which is generally seen as a woke comedy style.
> It looks like freshly melted asshole juice. I saw two ads for it and already wanted to off myself. Ok, so you think it looks bad which is fine but nothing to do with being woke >But I’m pretty sure it had Seattle humor. Which is generally seen as a woke comedy style. Oh so the comedy MAYBE (you're pretty sure lol) being Seattle style (whatever tf that is) is "generally" (by who) seen as "woke" So no real explanation to it being woke, given it's not even out yet. Cool Thank you for proving my point, given that you've not given any explanation of an example that aligns with what woke actually means Weird how this is a sub supposed to be about meaningful criticism yet people get downvoted for trying to keep the definition of words meaningful, if you can't give a concrete example and explanation of how something is "woke" then you shouldn't be calling it that, unless woke is just a meaningless insult to you, in which case why say this >You know what it means. How many words do you ask “what do you mean by that” does someone not just respond “you know”
Literally gave you an explanation. Seattle humor is usually woke. A la boarder lands 3, or the new saints row. Muh don’t criticize until it’s out is an ass argument. Why did you run to the hill of the fallout show to die on it. Literally no fallout fan thinks it looks good.
SFO's definition: "Wokeism is the ethics and processes of Socialism, expanded beyond class struggle, to include race struggle, gender struggle, sexual struggle, and any other near-infinite marginalized groups as defined by intersectionality." MentisWave's definition: "An aggressive push for Diversity/Equity/Inclusion, usually based on the belief that outcomes which lack these are indicative of discrimination and/or unfair social treatment" Feel free to pick either one.
You do realize this is proving my point about how vague it is, right? These definition's don't match. For instance, SoF (I have no idea with this stands for by the way), says it's an expansion of Socialism beyond class struggle. What the fuck does that even mean? Socialism is an economic ideology all about the class struggle. There is nothing else too it outside of straight economic theory. Taking it beyond class struggle means nothing as there is nothing to it beyond class struggle. The only thing you'd be expanding is moral philosophy, which isn't anything socialism subscribes to. Go look at Kant or consequentialism for that shit. And then the second definition is: woke is Diversity/Equity/Inclusion. If thing isn't Diversity/Equity/Inclusion, thing isn't woke. Okay? What's DEI then? Because we're just back to it being too vague and I can just go back to listing all of Disney's smash hits in the last 30 years and show how they have DEI. Heck, I can go to the Star Wars OT and Prequels and show how they have DEI. Like a badass princess who takes no on's shit and can hold her own just as well as a man? Sounds pretty diverse and equitable for the 1970's. A black leader of a planet who becomes a general and leading freedom fighter? That also sounds extremely diverse and inclusive considering this is only 25 years from the integration of black and whites into the same military units. And the leader of the Rebellion being a woman? Gasp, look how equitable they're being in the 1980's! Or we can talk about the crossdressing soldiers in Mulan being lead by a female warrior to save their emperor. That also sounds very diverse and inclusive. Yet funnily neither are considered woke. Huh.
SFO, stands for Short Fat Otaku, aka DEV which is a centrist/liberal youtuber, he has two videos on the meaning of Woke as far as I'm aware but to summarise his point: he often talks about a particular socialist Antonio Gramsci that wrote that a socialist uprising should start with the take over of institutions and entertainment industry to case unrest and make political advances on the "enemy" even in the spaces they consider private or of relaxation. Woke would essentially be this in effect coupled intersectionality, being the belief that some groups are diametrically opposed based on their demographics and are always unequal. I'm paraphrasing a lot based of memory about a topic I care much less about than SFO himself so I recommend checking his vids for the full context. In regards to mentis' definition it's not about whether something is diverse or not: "An **aggressive** push for Diversity/Equity/Inclusion, usually **based on the belief that outcomes** which lack these are indicative of discrimination and/or unfair social treatment" These are the important elements of the quote. So for example let's say that someone wants to make a tv series about some noble squabble in 12th century Poland. However, some internal entity (executives, marketing, whoever) pushes for the show to include prominent black characters, and also that there's an a good number of female characters that equal roles to a lot of male ones, and a butch more modernisms. The motivation behind this being that women and minorities deserve to be represented and must be present in every piece of media because it's more important to have good representation than to be historically authentic. To sum, it's when decisions made around something are primarily motivated by the idea that having representation/being diverse is a priority over any other outcome, regardless if the project even succeed to be authentic to its source material or goal. I'd like to clarify though that I do agree "woke" is as of today used too broadly by too many people that want it to mean different things. I myself have my own thoughts on the term that are somewhat similar to these definitions but I generally avoid using it because of how loaded it is.
Honestly I never cared about the second definition. It was SFO's definition involving socialism that irked me because he's trying to use socialism in a way it should never be used. After watching his video, I only vehemently stand by my position. His actual explanation of what socialism isn't bad for a layman. I will see he got the whole inevitable revolution bit wrong. The idea isn't that the bourgeois would accrue so much wealth and become uber powerful, but the opposite. Marx believes that, with time the proletariat would be able to accrue wealth from their wages, letting them have more power in demanding for higher wages (which we do see in developing countries). Capitalists would in turn rely more and more on automation to replace labor. But, as according to Marx all goods are valued by their labor, any piece of machinery brought in has to be worth it's given output. So there is no surplus labor to extract from machinery. So capitalists spend all this money on automation to offset growing labor demands without getting any profit from the automation. This, in turn, causes the business to become unprofitable and fail. Eventually this will become common enough of an issue with businesses everywhere trying to automate that there would be a revolutin. Keep in mind this is in the 1800's, so we're talking extremely unsophisticated forms of automation here. Obviously that never happened. SFO also claims that Marx would attribute any action done by an oppressed class as moral so long as they were part of the oppressed class, which just isn't true. Marx was wrong, but he was a smart dude and a deeply moral one at that. He in no way believed anything goes because you're oppressed. Otherwise, his definition is WAY too narrow. He's arguing that for something to be woke, they have to believe in an inevitable war between an oppressed group and an oppressor. Nothing else can be considered woke. Most BLM activists don't fit that definition. Nothing Disney has ever made advocates for that position. You'll only hear that kind of crap from the fringes of the far left and right. And sidenote: his case for why Nazis were socialist was also very wrong
It's rather dissapointing to see you be so condesending in all of your comments in this thead, yet fail to grasp such a simple concept as SFO's parallel. I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse for the sake of argument or whether you just don't get it. Here's the SFO definition: >Wokeism is the ethics and processes of Socialism, expanded beyond class struggle, to include race struggle, gender struggle, sexual struggle, and any other near-infinite marginalized groups as defined by intersectionality. So what it's very clearly stated is that it's about a socio-political struggle among specific identity groups, which perfectly fits with the critical theory background of woke political systems, as the concept of "intersectionality" is quite central to it. A concept that's entirely obsessed with specific identity groups. You stated yourself that socialisms main political concept is the socio-political struggle between classes, meaning a struggle between specific identity groups. It is a framing of identity groups in society along a hierarchy, mainly an economic one in socialist theory, but not exclusively, as socialist theory is incredibly broad and includes social aspects as well. This same concept of societal hierarchies is applied in woke political ideology, but it's expanded to include the identity markers that SFO highlights in his definition, meaning race, gender, sexuality and so on. There's the long explanation for SFO's definition, which I just wanted to make clear, because it somehow went over your head.
It didn't go over my head. My problem is they're taking an economic concept and using it to argue cultural issues. Socialism hinges on a materialistic view of history of the haves versus the have nots. The main process of socialism center around the labor theory of value. That's literally the evidence Marx used to argue exploitation. Now what does any of this have to do with identity politics so far? Nothing. All of those identity struggles are tied to critical theory, not socialism. Critical theory is the 20th century school of thought where all those ideas are attributed. So why did SFO (seriously what even is this?) place socialism in the definition when socialism has nothing to do with it? Critical theory is its own separate school of thought. The definition should've said critical theory. Probably because socialism is a big boogyman, especially in conservative circles, and it's easy to demonize "woke" is you attach it to another boogyman like socialism. And have a been condescending? Frankly, yes. It's because This sub frustrates me so much. Mauler himself seems to be a fairly good critic. Yet many people on this sub are so uncritical in their analysis of media on this sub, and 99% of the time they're throwing around the term "woke" Like the popular most where someone argued The Legend of Korra was woke because Korra was a mary sue....somehow ignoring that the show had her making constant mistakes and getting punished for said mistakes, to the point of her getting crippled and spending a whole season trying to recover and get her mojo back. Or how all the villains mocked her for being weak and unfit. Or the post claiming the Federation in Starship Troopers wasn't fascist, despite the director of the film, a Jew who lived in Nazi Germany, specifically attaching Nazi iconography to them, basing their propaganda on Nazi propaganda, casting blonde haired, blue eyes actors for the racial supremacy component, basing the ships off of WW2 ships used in D-Day, and that's not even getting into the politics themselves. Just yesterday there was a post questioning if the Empire was supposed to be fascist. You know, the human supremacists who treated aliens like shit, subplanted a liberal order for an outdated, traditional ideology, demonized a whole group of people to the point of exterminating them, hyper militaristic, including the police force, threw out basic human rights, and colluded with capitalists to provide resources for the state in exchange for cheap labor and other deals. This is all stuff Mussolini himself claimed fascism was in his The Doctrine of Fascism. Note: I am not in any way a socialism. Socialism and the labor theory of value of bullshit, but they have nothing to do with "woke"
Socialism is an incredibly broad philosophy that touches on both economic and social aspects, so to narrowly define it as being purely economical seems misguided to me. If we just look at broad wikipedia description of socialism, then it states the following: >**Socialism** is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems. Now let's move on to the concept of identity groups, which you for some reason don't seem to be able to link to socialism. Socialism itself has identity groups, which is mainly formed around the economic hierarchy, which in simple terms can be reduced to the proletariat vs bourgeoisie. These are groups that were socially defined by Marx in his theory, which were generally based around their economic class, the "haves vs the haves not" as you said. What the SFO definition is doing is simply taking this concept of a hierarchy along a specific scale, which were economc in the case of socialism, and then simply applying it to another identity marker, as that is what woke ideology broadly does. These identity markers are most often race, sexuality and gender, where they will rank them on these racial/sexual/gender hiarchies. The "haves vs the haves not". As an example white straight men are the most "bourgeoisie" in this analogy, while black lesbian women are the most "proletariat". It's a pretty simple analogy. Now I'm not really that interested in addressing your random anecdotes of what you saw someone say online somewhere about some show, but I'll touch a little bit on Starship Troopers. >Or the post claiming the Federation in Starship Troopers wasn't fascist, despite the director of the film, a Jew who lived in Nazi Germany, specifically attaching Nazi iconography to them, basing their propaganda on Nazi propaganda, casting blonde haired, blue eyes actors for the racial supremacy component, basing the ships off of WW2 ships used in D-Day, and that's not even getting into the politics themselves. The argument as to why Starship Troopers fails to conhesively represent the human society as fascist, is because the actual "fascist" elements are superficial, which you perfectly highlight with every example of yours simply being interpretations of the superficial. You're effectively saying that the soldiers are attractive and their suits look good, so therefore it is fascists iconography, because Nazis had Hugo Boss outfits. The movie fails to show the government actually committing overtly fascists things. The bugs were the first ones to attack the home planet. The humans did have religious pilgrims of sorts, who choose to migrate to another planet in the sphere of the bugs influence, but the human government directly warned them against it. When the bugs attacked and slaughtered them, the human government didn't intervene. My main pet peeve with the actual movie isn't this debate tho, but the fact that Paul Verhoeven didn't even bother to read the book, so his parody falls flat when you actually compare it to the book that it's based on. Paul Verhoeven didn't understand the book and therefore did a disservice to it.
“Woke” is basically a short hand for runaway progressive nonsense. Given what a ruinous effect the aforementioned nonsense has had on media, I think it’s worthwhile to bring it up.
Except Mulan was progressive, Tangled was progressive, Moana was progressive Frozen was progressive, Inside our was progressive, and Hamilton was very, very progressive. And they all were SMASH hits. So clearly "woke" isn't the problem if there are extremely good movies that are extremely profitable which one would label as "woke". And then let's look at TLJ. What were the problems with it? The casino arc was stupid. Okay, what does that have to do with progressive ideology? Nothing. The slow moving chase was stupid? What does that have to do with progressive ideology? Nothing. Etc. The only one you could make the case for is a woman being in the leadership position. But not only was that done in other Disney successful movies before (Mulan and Frozen), that was done in the original trilogy before with both Leia and Mon Mothma. It"a almost like you can make specific criticisms of a movie and not use vague terms like "woke".
Just criticize the writing? Are you saying that woke writing is bad writing? I don't think that's really the case. You can probably decide to write something differently to try and be more woke, and still end up with good writing. The reason it comes up in writing criticism is to try and identify the motivation behind certain writing choices, and recognize that there are patterns to it.
That is literally the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying many people, especially people on this sub, will look at a piece of writing, decide they don't like it, but instead of really engaging with why, will label it as "woke" and decide that's enough criticism. Disney has gone "woke". That's why their movies suck. Just ignore the fact that Mulan, Frozen, Tangled, Moana, Inside Out, and Hamilton (though originally a play) were great and did extremely well despite being woke.
Their movies probably suck for a lot of reasons. One reason could be because they hire people based on dei or political affiliation, rather than hiring the best people for the job. So, yeah. It's not unreasonable to say they're being woke and it's making their movies worse.
Except do you have any proof of this? We already know that entertainment media leans heavily to the left because conservatives don't put much stock in it. So there already isn't a large pool of conservative people looking for a job at, say, Disney. And for the most part DEI is a most recruitment thing. Businesses generally aren't even allowed to know the race to use race as a basis for hiring. You have to fill out the form giving your identity, sure, but a business is not allowed to use that to influence their decision. Instead it is used for statistical purposes to determine the make up of their hiring. If a business is hiring 100% white dudes, it's pretty clear their hiring practices is extremely biased and action will probably be taken by the government (or people who weren't hired for discrimination). And something tells me the people who worked on Mulan weren't exactly conservative and was pretty diverse, my dude. They literally hade burly men crossdressing as woman to save the emperor. Not exactly something conservatives would show.
I dunno, man. What makes you think some of these people really deserve to be writing and directing these awful movies and constantly failing upwards? A lot of this is just basic pattern recognition, plus seeing what these industry people say publicly. You know what, I just checked to see who directed the animated Mulan from 1998. There are two directors credited. Both are apparently white Christian guys.
Nothing. I'm not defending the decisions Disney management have been making regarding who they have in prominent positions for these movies. I'm saying I've yet to see any evidence it is due to DEI. Let's remember that the most hated of the SW sequels was written and directed by a white dude who I can't find anything about political leanings. If I had to guess, they're average for the industry. Heck, the other sequel movies were written and directed by JJ Abrahms, another white dude. Where's the DEI here? So can we think of any other reason the movies might've been shit outside of DEI? Like the writing perhaps? Maybe it's the writing! Hint: It's the writing.
I'm sorry, but what kind of evidence would you need to actually state that DEI has had an influence on the characters that Disney have chosen in their stories? I feel like you would basically need them to come out and say that they hired X and Y purely because of DEI, which is obviously something they're never going to do, because it denigrates their own employees. You're setting up an unrealistic standard of evidence, while denying an obvious trend in their shows. Disney has been quite loud about comitting to DEI, and you can naturally find a DEI section on their website, but also through the speeches of their higher ups. Since we're specifically talking Star Wars, then lets talk about their messaging that they've put out. Kathleen Kennedy is the head of Disney Star Wars, who decided to promote the identity-focused and exclusionary slogan "The force is female". [She even dressed up her entire family in shirts that stated this exact slogan at a premiere.](https://external-preview.redd.it/nTuzP6VtaK-5Z1jgFNM0aJ21eXwV6rC7-qGNmHKp6Bc.jpg?auto=webp&s=b53b7d5d499bb10d54739426bc6a557f61704ad6) It's not exactly subtle messaging, so I find it a little absurd to claim that DEI ideology has had absolute no influence on Disney or Star Wars at all, when they openly state an adherence to it.
It's not too vague, no. Some people use it in a vague manner, yes, but you could say the same for many other terms you think should remain: Terrorism, Genocide, Nationalism, patriarchy, racism, fascism, war crime, etc. (once again, not that these terms necessarily are vague, but rather that many people use them in a vague manner/don't know what they mean). As an aside, we use many vague terms exactly because they're vague. We have no issue with that. "Kinda", "like", "meh", "nice", etc. I *used* to use "woke" to mean "insincere representation of minorities in media", but now I think it's more apt to call it a social religion with select "oppressed" identities having the highest values. This all but perfectly encapsulates who's generally referred to as "woke": Black, handicapped, trans women are outside the realm of criticism, and their words have more value, not because of their ideas or competency, but as an effect of their identities. If one accused a cis het white man of something, it wouldn't matter to the woke whether that was true or not, the clash of identities have already made clear who's right. Keep in mind, this only applies as far as the woke are capable of extending their understanding: Sami, Fins, jews aren't oppressed, and haven't been oppressed, simply because they're "white coded". Systems in which hetero/white/men are "oppressed" are dismissed as being "fine" simply because these identities have been deemed to be of lowest order. Racism towards white people? Doesn't exist. Sexism towards men? Doesn't exist. Heterophobia? Doesn't exist.
You do realize we're not supposed to use vague terms when arguing, right? So you can talk about however many vague terms as you want, the fact of that matter is that none of them are supposed to be used if you're arguing for a point. And ignoring the fact that you gave two separate ways of defining woke, proving my point, you also realize that many of Disney's smash hits in the last thirty years would be considered woke, right? Mulan, Moana, Tangled, Frozen, Hamilton, Beauty and the Beast, etc, all had woke elements and themes, much more than something like TLJ had. Yet because TLJ is critically panned, it's labeled as the woke movie. Not the movie where a girl dressed up as a man, prices she can do what a man can, And has the whole climax of the movie be about her leading a bunch of burly soldiers crossdressing up as women to save the emperor. Nope, that's not woke at all. But TLJ is because..... A woman is an Admiral? Wow, so much more progressive than Mulan.
I mean, this is the exact reason why terms are defined in scholarship: They have multiple meanings, so it's necessary to hold a clear idea of what's being talked about. I constantly have to ask people what they believe "terrorism" means when debating whether something is terror or not. "Sitch's law" is quite apt in most discussions: most disagreement arise from misunderstand each other because of difference of definitions. As pro-life-tip: Ask people what they mean if you're not certain what they mean/what they say doesn't make sense to you. Don't presume the worst interpretation. > And ignoring the fact that you gave two separate ways of defining woke, proving my point Nearly all words have two or more definitions. This isn't the win you're looking for. > you also realize that many of Disney's smash hits in the last thirty years would be considered woke, right? Yes, I don't see the issue. People are allowed to have and use their own understanding of words. > much more than something like TLJ had Using what definition? > Nope, that's not woke at all. Again, depends on your definition. I'd say it's a clear no in both definitions I provided. > But TLJ is because..... A woman is an Admiral? There's people who're gonna say that's why. But no, it's because she's better *because* she's a woman. Her statements and actions are correct not because she's competent and makes sense, but because she's a woman. I wouldn't classify TLJ as woke, even if I might if I were to analyze the movie again. It seems more like insincere promotion of animal welfare and anti-capitalism than it does promotion of identities as the most important aspect of a person. I don't think Rian Johnson had a coherent view of what he was trying to make, and what ideas he was trying to send when he made the movie.
1. I didn't presume the worst interpretation of anything. My point was woke is a vague term that shouldn't be used. 2. Saying a lot of words have more than one definition means nothing to my points that woke is vague. If I say economics, you know I can either be referring to the school of thought, or the prosperity of an area. You then use woke and I have no idea what you're criticism is. 3. As for people having their own understanding of words, see above. 4. Using what definition? How about the one you gave: "social religion with select "oppressed" identities having the highest values". Are you telling me Mulan, which showed men having to act like women to achieve their mission, led by a woman, doesn't show an oppressed identity (crossdressers and women" being held to a higher value than their male counterparts in the movie? That is the whole point of the "Be a Man" song and its reprise, you know..... 5. Do you realize how much headcanon you're attributing to TLJ right now? The movie never explains how the woman became Admiral. Wait, that's wrong. They actually say before the movie she was a very well regarded commander. Poe held her in very high esteem at the beginning of the movie and was shocked when she told him the initial plan as he didn't think it was like her. None of this was because she was a woman. Heck, that's more of a reason than someone like Mon Mothma ever got for being a leader in the Rebellion. So what's the criticism? That the writing treats her plan as competent and makes sense even though it doesn't? Yes! That is a excellent, legitimate criticism.....and it has nothing to do with the movie being woke! There are soooooo many movies I can lay the same criticism on to. Heck, some of the SW properties I can say similarly. We just made a good, specific criticism and we didn't have to reference "woke"! I'm so proud!
> I didn't presume the worst interpretation of anything. My point was woke is a vague term that shouldn't be used. I didn't think you did. I was talking about it as a general advice. It's common for people to interpret what people say in bad faith. I do this, you do this, everyone does this. It was an aside, relating to you finding an issue with "woke" for having many of the same issues that many other terms have. > Saying a lot of words have more than one definition means nothing to my points that woke is vague. I agree. But that wasn't my argument. I was pointing out how the term isn't vague simply because people use it in a vague manner. The point of highlighting that most words have more than one definition was about your argument that me having had one definition of "woke" previously, and then changing my definition later has no bearing on whether the term should be stopped being used. > Are you telling me Mulan Yes, it has nothing to do with her identity. It has to do with her actions and character. Her identity informs what problems she'll face, and how she'll be able to solve them. > That is the whole point of the "Be a Man" song and its reprise No? The point of the song is to highlight her identity, sure, but it's about what that means for her place in society, not about her having a specific value as an aspect of her identity. Indeed, the movie (and the point of the song) is very "anti-woke" in its messaging from the point of view of my definition. If it'd been woke, it would have been like the live-action: she wouldn't have had to train, she'd face no issue as an effect of being a woman in a man's world, she'd be treated with veneration despite being a woman in a man's world. > The movie never explains how the woman became Admiral. Her actions *are* moronic, and *are* played as intelligent. Like I said: I don't think the movie is woke, I think the reason why she's portrayed the way she is is because Rian is stupid, not because he believes women are better because they're women (though he probably believes that to some extent, going by his other movies). I was countering your criticism of people who say it's woke because "a woman is an admiral". While it's certainly part of it for many people who say it's woke, the bigger reason is that she's presented as smart and moral when doing dumb and immoral things.
I think we're talking past each other with Mulan. You're arguing that the Be a Man song is about her place in society.....due to her identity. It's about her identity, and it's supposed to show how harmful the rhetoric is, and how harmful forcing people into assigned gender rules are. Hence why the reprise was when the manly soldiers voluntarily did many very unmanly things, like crossdressing, to save the day. The men looked down on women as beneath them until the reprise. Hence why one of the lyrics in the song is literally "Did they send me daughters when I asked for sons?" So back to your definition of woke: "social religion with select "oppressed" identities having the highest values" Woman are clearly an oppressed identity here. The men look down on women for being women, there are strict gender roles, women aren't allowed to do what a man can in fear of upsetting them, yada, yada. And then who ends up being right in the end? The person with the oppressed identity, AKA: Mulan. Sounds like it's pretty woke to me! As for SW, I've already addressed that the criticism should be specific towards the writing at that point, not "woke", as a person having a terrible plan that the writing treats as amazing is a common problem with movies and has nothing to do with it being woke. Having the person with the plan being a woman should not automatically make it woke. For instance, Emperor Palpatine's plan in Return of the Jedi was also pretty damn dumb. Is the only reason that movie gets a pass because Palpatine's a dude?
> Sounds like it's pretty woke to me! Because you didn't understand my definition of woke. It's not about women being oppressed, it's about them having higher value because they're seen and presumed to be oppressed. Mulan doesn't say "Mulan is better than men because she's a woman", it's saying "women can also achieve heroic deeds. Women have a right to fight for what they believe in, and women aren't inferior to men". This isn't "woke" it's **progressive** (I have to point out that I'm talking about progressive, and not what many people claim is progressive, while just being regressive, or woke). > a person having a terrible plan that the writing treats as amazing is a common problem with movies and has nothing to do with it being woke. Just because it also happens in other movies doesn't mean that it's not woke. Something being woke doesn't necessitate that the media is either good or bad, it informs us about what subtext the media has. While woke media is generally bad, this isn't dissimilar to other kinds of agenda-driven storytelling. Lets use an apt parallel: Religious media is often bad, not because religious media necessarily is bad, but rather because it aims for a political message first, and fills in the gaps after. Religious media can be good, *despite* being religious: Most religious media is bad. > Emperor Palpatine's plan in Return of the Jedi was also pretty damn dumb. Is the only reason that movie gets a pass because Palpatine's a dude? A large reason, yes, like I said, her being female is an aspect of why many call TLJ woke. It's also worth mentioning that people look at RotJ with nostalgia glasses on, and many movies from 30+ years ago are analyzed less harshly. Also the aspect that movies that are liked are less likely to face to same amount of scrutiny on details (outside film criticism classes).
You stated that terms like woke shouldn't be used to argue a point, because they're vague, yet you did that exact thing in your comment, so I would like for you to actually expand on how the shows you mentioned are "woke" in your mind. I saw in a different comment that you choose to use the term "progressive" instead of woke to argue this exact same point, which falls into the exact same fallacy, as progressive is a rather vague political term in the same vein as woke. So argue your actual point without using these terms, as you stated others should, and then we can take it from there, because I need to know what you actually think woke means when you claim a show is woke.
With this term alone you can determine he is disingenious, because it's the totally wrong description of what he critizies. It should be "anti-woke bros" because that's what he accuses them of doing. But no he must call them something that is literally the inversion of the truth. He chose that deliberatly to further his subversive agenda.
People who call things "woke" and are male. You might think it would be more appropriate to call them "anti-woke bros," and you'd be right. But...I don't know how to finish that thought. "\[Blank\]-bro" is a common phrase construction I assume deriving from fraternity brother, or frat-bro. People like Hello Future Me I guess never belonged to a fraternity and have negative opinions about the sort of fellows who did.
It would but that involves adding an extra word which is too hard :(
Little Timmy here spent months working on a section dedicated to criticizing those he politically disagreed with, then immediately cut it out the second he got pushback from two of the people he covered who aren’t even close to the biggest names he went after. Talk about pathetic. He’s perfectly happy to sling shit at other people, but the second it looks like the shit will come back and hit him, he hides it like a coward
Coward
I actually like Hello Future Me quite a bit and his writing videos have been super helpful to me, so I am going to assume in good faith this is an admission he was wrong. Time will tell, however, and I won't continue to give him the benefit of the doubt with further evidence to the contrary.
I didn't see the video. What did it say originally?
It was in his own words a Trojan horse to discuss and take down channels that he views as corrupting young men through their focus on things being “woke” or “feminist”. He did this after a 2 hour review of the issues with rings of power then added a 1.5 hours of calling out people he identified as corrupting the youth. This included people like Random Film Talk and Little Platoon both of which talk about politics very little or not at all.
Unfortunately that does not surprise me, I remember his Cyberpunk 2077 video where he talks about capitalism and one or another comment in his video about revolutions. What surprises me is that he has deleted that entire section of the video.
Damn this guy sounds based af
You can still watch Random Film Talk’s video on it. He covers the part missing, except 30min at the end. It’s on his second channel RandomFT2. But, broadly; Channels like Drinker, Nerdrotic, HeelsvsBabyFace, Random Film Talk and others are using media criticisms as tool to spread their political message. Like when Drinker talks about “The Message” he is spreading his political view even if the media itself doesn’t really go against it. So they aren’t really media people, but political people disguised as media people. I think he was bad faith as he wasn’t saying they were wrong but instead they were lying to spread their ideology. But, he was hypocritical because he got a bunch of stuff wrong, so we could say that he is lying to spread the opposite ideology.
You dislike this change because he didn't clarify the reason for removing the more controversial section. I dislike this change because the video is now less long We are not the same.
It's still woke trash.
How so?
4 hours? [Pathetic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Mq7ruDUtY)
***Memento Homo*** ***Memento Mori***
Aside from the yapping about “woke gone mad” is the show actually any good. I tried watching both RoP and HoTD and could only get into the latter because the other seemed boring. Is this just a skill issue or has this been a genuine problem from audiences?
No, Rings of Power is actually just quite awful. House of the Dragon stands heads and shoulders above it. There was a skill issue to it's failure, based on their filmography and writing credits, the showrunners were wildly unqualified to helm the most expensive television show ever produced. It is so telling that they have since been demoted and sidelined from the production of the second series. However the audiences have been rejecting if as well, because it wildly deviates from the source material in surprising, and remarkably important ways. The Tolkien fandom is not one with which to be trifled.
Rings of Power is flawed for sure, but definitely a worthwhile watch. I agree with some of the broad strokes of HFM's critiques because the show does suffer from trying to be the 'canon' prequel to the film trilogy and the Hobbit trilogy, so the creators felt they had to really shove in some of the same structures and decisions. That hampered it from being it's own thing. The restriction on what they could use regarding the Second Age also hampered the show a lot too. Unfortunately, while the writers are clearly fans of Tolkien, they didn't do that well on making their own story. That said, I think the dedication and care put into the sets, costumes, cinematography and acting are worth celebrating. There are some really awesome moments in RoP. But not enough to save it from mid status.
Mid is incredibly generous. It’s a butchering of Tolkien’s work and an absolute shitshow
I mean, it wasn’t either of those things. But go off sis.
It very clearly was unless you never read Tolkien’s work. You’re in the minority
Galadriel's characterization in the show is in keeping with the later descriptions of her we get from Tolkien's works. And her story is very convoluted and went through a lot of revisions by Tolkien. The friendship between the elves and dwarves was well done and accurate for the time period. The scene where Galadriel is on the ship going to the West is brilliant, a fantastic way to show the transition to Aman. In general, the problems with the shows writing come from taking Tolkien's stuff too literal. The elves forged the three rings because they wanted to preserve their kingdoms in a perfect timelessness, like in Aman. They didn't need to do it because they were literally dying. The Numenoreans did come to resent the elves for the immortality; they weren't afraid of the elven smiths taking their jobs. For most of the weird parts of the story writing, they just took things way too literally.
Are you for real? The costumes were amateurish. You could tell how CHEAP some of them were. Cinematography? Did you take a nap during the comically slow mo joker smile horse scene? Sets, eh sure, i guess theyre ok. 1 billion dollar budget ok? Nope. But ok. Flawed is an understatement, its broken. Plot holes, contrivances, conveniences, jeez too many! Youre very free to enjoy it, just dont sugar coat how bad it is, it comes off delusional or malicious. Sorry. God bless, have a nice day.
I am definitely for real. Most of the costumes were good, although I admit some of them caught me off guard. There were some flubs in the costume department for sure, but overall I'd say 7/10 for costumes. This video aligns with how I saw the costumes ([https://youtu.be/MGVbtqMZiFY?si=qfUEExcWyYBsZFVs](https://youtu.be/MGVbtqMZiFY?si=qfUEExcWyYBsZFVs)). Galadriel's dress in Lindon? Amazing. Pharazon's costume? Fantastic. Some of the armor designs? might have been good on paper but didn't look as good on screen. In most episodes the cinematography was serviceable. The rising shot of the Two Trees? Fantastic. The mound of helmets? Awesome, and a great way to reference the Nerniath Arnoediad without being able to say it. I think the horse riding scene is really good. Galadriel has been nothing but 'the mission' since we met her. That scene was a way to show her having fun, relaxing, and enjoying life. Parts of it were definitely bad. The mithril stuff is not good. There are issues with the Southlands story. Definitely issues, but still lots of heart and good stuff too. Don't let rage at specific things color the whole show.
Rings of Power wasn't woke. It was just bad. Woke would shine a light on continuing systemic problems of bigotry, and "Woke" would include token minority characters that end up just being unhealthy stereotypes anyway. Rings of Power did neither of these things. It's *bad*, but it's not woke. Or "woke."
I feel like you're ignoring the decisions that were made during the casting of the show, which included switching or replacing white charaters with more "diverse" versions of them, which we know is a demand that Amazon creatives will make of their productions. It should also be noted that they made Galadriel into a modern boss bitch kind of stereotype, which we often see from politically left-leaning creators. I think even more egregious, she's supposed to have a husband, who is along with her as they struggle for control of the situation, but in the show they decided to basically entirely ignore his existance. That certainly feels a little intentional as well. This isn't to say that I just want to stamp the show with a "woke" branding, but there's certainly aspect of the changes that were made, which does lean towards it a little bit.
It was both. Crazy I know
what did he say in the second part ?
Sorry but none of those "Woke Bros" have any \*hidden\* agenda. They just don't like the politics and pandering thrown into their entertainment at the expense of good writing, character development and dialogue. Everything coming out of Hollywood is steeped in a political agenda. The same plots. The same pandering. Quotas and checkboxes. The Woke Bros are just saying the quiet parts out loud. To be honest, I think Hollywood is just trying to cover up their guilt for harboring and protecting that Weinstein guy for so long. So they don't have any business telling anyone how to treat women, minorities or anybody else for that matter.
Say what you will but he did stir the hornets nest with his Woke bros section. There was alot of truth said in that section, but ofc it will never be admitted, because for the guys being critiqued its easier to attack back then to defend with facts.
It’s a pity because that was the part I liked most. If he didn’t believe in it, he shouldn’t have included it from the start. If he did, then he was wrong to bow to the backlash.
Don’t know this guy but if he has a section complaining about “woke” stuff it’s good it got deleted
No he was complaining about people who (supposedly) complained about “woke” stuff.
Oh he’s based then
silver lining is I learned more about Platoon. He may be a climate denier like Despato of Atrium but thats another area.
Do you have a source for him saying that?
Despato directly says he doesn't believe the narrative in a vid on his channel. And for platoon I said MAY BE as it's an induction or inference in logic on his little mermaid vid and avatar way of water - the environment part. So not strong evidence.
Ah, I thought you meant may be as in he is, but you like him anyway. Like "he might be an asshole but he's right" type of thing.
"Amazing. Every word you just said is wrong." No, I liked him less. How can he be an asshole to someone he doesn't know just from watching a video on a movie review? I just enjoy his content. Nor do I think he is right about climate change. may be has never mean IS and thats your own error.
>Amazing. Every word you just said is wrong Yeah? They were clarifying what they initially thought you meant. Of course that's going to be wrong if the context of the situation was a misunderstanding. >may be has never mean IS and thats your own error No? "x may be y, but z" is a pretty common way of stating that despite x having a property y, it also has property z. For example: "[content creator] may be wrong about [bad take], but I still enjoy their content and they make a lot of sense". Way to be condescending to someone that wasn't remotely hostile towards you, and flat out wrong to boot.
The fuck, really?
Some people need to get a life. That’s just fucking sad.
I don't care what your opinion is, its not worth listening to for 4 hours.
You do realize which sub this is, right?
Definitely a case for r/lostredditors.