QuietBeef said:Do you really think the creation of this movie was about feminism, rather than money?
The intent doesn't make a difference to me. It wouldn't be the first time something was halfheartedly remodeled to transparently and intentionally push new social norms, though. The Watchmen TV series comes to mind.
QuietBeef said:Do you really think the creation of this movie was about feminism, rather than money?The intent doesn't make a difference to me.
Then in what way do you see this being about feminism?
It wouldn't be the first time something was halfheartedly remodeled to transparently and intentionally push new social norms, though. The Watchmen TV series comes to mind.
"Halfheartedly" would imply the opposite to me. If they actually cared about the cause, the changes made wouldn't be such an incredibly superficial nod to it. When I see half baked media blatantly targeting a hot-button issue, it has "make a cheap buck" written all over it. They're doing the same thing mainstream media studios without inspiration always do. Bastardizing whatever is trendy. However, if the trendy thing is apolitical, no one cares about all the shitty corporate garbage we're bombarded with. It's ignorable. Meaningless. But suddenly, when the topic tickles a person in the political feels, their assembly-line-produced trash is somehow representative of the issue it's trying to take financial advantage of. Not just representative, but actively making social change even.
Technically, you're doing exactly what they want. You're treating this lame movie that no one cares about like it means something. Because gurl power. : P
QuietBeef said:Do you really think the creation of this movie was about feminism, rather than money?The intent doesn't make a difference to me.
Then in what way do you see this being about feminism?
It wouldn't be the first time something was halfheartedly remodeled to transparently and intentionally push new social norms, though. The Watchmen TV series comes to mind.
"Halfheartedly" would imply the opposite to me. If they actually cared about the cause, the changes made wouldn't be such an incredibly superficial nod to it. When I see half baked media blatantly targeting a hot-button issue, it has "make a cheap buck" written all over it. They're doing the same thing mainstream media studios without inspiration always do. Bastardizing whatever is trendy. However, if the trendy thing is apolitical, no one cares about all the shitty corporate garbage we're bombarded with. It's ignorable. Meaningless. But suddenly, when the topic tickles a person in the political feels, their assembly-line-produced trash is somehow representative of the issue it's trying to take financial advantage of. Not just representative, but actively making social change even.
Technically, you're doing exactly what they want. You're treating this lame movie that no one cares about like it means something. Because gurl power. : P
It's about virtue signaling, not feminism.
When I use the term halfhearted, I don't mean production-wise. With the Watchmen TV series, production was good, the score was on point, even parts of the plot were compelling. What was halfhearted to me was how the social narratives were so transparent. A black female lead, racial topics in times of racial tension, a main female antagonist. All of which are fine, when they aren't feeling forced. I also am not of the opinion that a dollar at the end of the day is all that matters to directors.
QuietBeef said:Do you really think the creation of this movie was about feminism, rather than money?The intent doesn't make a difference to me.
Then in what way do you see this being about feminism?
It wouldn't be the first time something was halfheartedly remodeled to transparently and intentionally push new social norms, though. The Watchmen TV series comes to mind.
"Halfheartedly" would imply the opposite to me. If they actually cared about the cause, the changes made wouldn't be such an incredibly superficial nod to it. When I see half baked media blatantly targeting a hot-button issue, it has "make a cheap buck" written all over it. They're doing the same thing mainstream media studios without inspiration always do. Bastardizing whatever is trendy. However, if the trendy thing is apolitical, no one cares about all the shitty corporate garbage we're bombarded with. It's ignorable. Meaningless. But suddenly, when the topic tickles a person in the political feels, their assembly-line-produced trash is somehow representative of the issue it's trying to take financial advantage of. Not just representative, but actively making social change even.
Technically, you're doing exactly what they want. You're treating this lame movie that no one cares about like it means something. Because gurl power. : P
It's about virtue signaling, not feminism.
So the anti-feminism tweet you posted was unrelated and you just didn't feel like making a new topic for it? lol
When I use the term halfhearted, I don't mean production-wise. With the Watchmen TV series, production was good, the score was on point, even parts of the plot were compelling. What was halfhearted to me was how the social narratives were so transparent. A black female lead, racial topics in times of racial tension, a main female antagonist. All of which are fine, when they aren't feeling forced.
I don't mean production-wise, either. That's exactly my point. Something can be low-budget and still fall into this kind of political baiting. In fact, I'd say I see this kind of thing more often from higher budget productions, as those are typically the ones under the thumb of artistically disinterested mega-studios, while low budget productions are more often a person or group's passion project.
The fact that the social narrative itself is poorly thought-out and poorly constructed, I think shows their complete lack of genuine interest in or concern for it. Not necessarily for the production as a whole, as you point out, but for the social message within it. This movie is to feminism what a cheap Chinese knock-off is to a designer brand piece of clothing. It wasn't made with care and honest intention and effort, it doesn't sell because of quality, it was made and it sells because its veneer was meant to be associated with something of quality.
I also am not of the opinion that a dollar at the end of the day is all that matters to directors.
Well obviously not as a blanket statement. But likewise, to think that every movie is the product of somebody's honest passion for the art or meaning of it is rather naive. Like everything in life, if it sells, somebody who doesn't give a shit will produce it.
As a side note, I also wouldn't put movies like this on the head of the director. At least not purely. This kind of thing is often the choice of the studio, the producers. Directing is obviously not an easy field to break into, and most who aspire to it will take what work they can get. If a studio asks them for this kind of movie, they make it. If a bunch of suit monkeys say the graphs show there's money to be made in a black female lead, then that's what they ask for and the director simply does their job.
QuietBeef said:So the anti-feminism tweet you posted was unrelated and you just didn't feel like making a new topic for it? lol
You don't see that as virtue signaling? Also it was a pro-feminist Tweet.
QuietBeef said:The fact that the social narrative itself is poorly thought-out and poorly constructed, I think shows their complete lack of genuine interest in or concern for it. Not necessarily for the production as a whole, as you point out, but for the social message within it. This movie is to feminism what a cheap Chinese knock-off is to a designer brand piece of clothing. It wasn't made with care and honest intention and effort, it doesn't sell because of quality, it was made and it sells because its veneer was meant to be associated with something of quality.
I haven't watched the new Charlie's Angels, so I have no real sense of it other than what it appears to be in contrast with what the original films and series were about. I agree with what you are saying, though. Except that it sells, this one missed the intended mark.
QuietBeef said:Well obviously not as a blanket statement. But likewise, to think that every movie is the product of somebody's honest passion for the art or meaning of it is rather naive. Like everything in life, if it sells, somebody who doesn't give a shit will produce it.
As a side note, I also wouldn't put movies like this on the head of the director. At least not purely. This kind of thing is often the choice of the studio, the producers. Directing is obviously not an easy field to break into, and most who aspire to it will take what work they can get. If a studio asks them for this kind of movie, they make it. If a bunch of suit monkeys say the graphs show there's money to be made in a black female lead, then that's what they ask for and the director simply does their job.
Sure. My original contempt in the first post was not so much directed at the movie as it was toward the same publication radically switching positions. Joke's on me though—this one turned out to be just a meme (don't always trust Reddit). In the case of the Watchmen TV series, the directors explicitly stated that their intent was social transformation, and that they are hoping more directors will follow in their vein. This was disappointing to me, as it betrayed the original vision of the comics and movie and hijacked the material for something else.
Using virtue signaling as a money grab doesn't make it more palatable in my opinion. There is obviously a ubiquitous corporate PR movement ongoing. Aunt Jemima will soon be Pearl Milling Company. Rainbow colors are more prominent in advertising since it's been in vogue. Twitch (owned by Amazon) is coming down on people for using words like "simp." The taste of populist appeasement is almost as bitter as the outright vitriol by many who virtue signal.
QuietBeef said:So the anti-feminism tweet you posted was unrelated and you just didn't feel like making a new topic for it? lolYou don't see that as virtue signaling?
Do you mean the movie, or the tweet? I suppose the answer is yes in either case, but in different ways.
Also it was a pro-feminist Tweet.
It seemed pretty mocking to me. I mean, it's comparing the gravity of feminism to the gravity of a slight temperature adjustment. I assumed that that trivializing was supposed to be the joke. If that was meant to be a feminist tweet, it's..... odd. lol But okay. People are odd.
Still, that's kind of beside the point, since you posted it in this thread for a reason, while saying your complaint has nothing to do with feminism. Unless you felt it related to the topic in some other way?
QuietBeef said:The fact that the social narrative itself is poorly thought-out and poorly constructed, I think shows their complete lack of genuine interest in or concern for it. Not necessarily for the production as a whole, as you point out, but for the social message within it. This movie is to feminism what a cheap Chinese knock-off is to a designer brand piece of clothing. It wasn't made with care and honest intention and effort, it doesn't sell because of quality, it was made and it sells because its veneer was meant to be associated with something of quality.I haven't watched the new Charlie's Angels, so I have no real sense of it other than what it appears to be in contrast with what the original films and series were about. I agree with what you are saying, though. Except that it sells, this one missed the intended mark.
I haven't either. I think we can get a pretty good idea from the trailer and marketing though.
These kind of movies flopping is always nice to see. Not that it will change the Hollywood mentality, they've had plenty enough financial success from this kind of slapdash baiting, but it's a nice little slap on the wrist for them trying to feed us garbage. lol
QuietBeef said:Well obviously not as a blanket statement. But likewise, to think that every movie is the product of somebody's honest passion for the art or meaning of it is rather naive. Like everything in life, if it sells, somebody who doesn't give a shit will produce it.
As a side note, I also wouldn't put movies like this on the head of the director. At least not purely. This kind of thing is often the choice of the studio, the producers. Directing is obviously not an easy field to break into, and most who aspire to it will take what work they can get. If a studio asks them for this kind of movie, they make it. If a bunch of suit monkeys say the graphs show there's money to be made in a black female lead, then that's what they ask for and the director simply does their job.Sure. My original contempt in the first post was not so much directed at the movie as it was toward the same publication radically switching positions.
That's a strange thing to have contempt for. lol Artists toy with the reversal of concepts in media all the time.
Joke's on me though—this one turned out to be just a meme (don't always trust Reddit).
I had a feeling it was. Didn't read like a legit article title. It read like when e-extremists narrate how they see the world. lol
In the case of the Watchmen TV series, the directors explicitly stated that their intent was social transformation, and that they are hoping more directors will follow in their vein. This was disappointing to me, as it betrayed the original vision of the comics and movie and hijacked the material for something else.
I could just as easily see the directors saying that sort of thing for, as you said yourself, virtue signaling. If you're going to be blatant about the political baiting, you may as well market it, right? They may have even believed they were doing something good. Granted, I haven't seen that show, so I don't know how sloppy or superficial the attempt at moral messaging was, but if it was as you say, then I doubt it's a subject the director and other major contributors truly cared about. Someone who's given real thought and care to a cause and aims to make changes through their art, can typically represent it better than creating a piece of media that has nothing to do with it and then awkwardly inserting some childishly superficial commentary on the subject. It betrays how little thought they actually gave it, how little it mattered to the story they were telling. Rather than it being a feminist or anti-racist piece of media, it's just a regular piece of media with a feminist or anti-racist logo slapped on it.
I'm not surprised this happened with Watchmen. But I'm not mad about it either. Almost any time there's a piece of successful and meaningful media, people who didn't fully understand the original will make bastardized versions. It doesn't make the original any less good. That's just purist thinking. The world is full of failed attempts to capture something better, and I say keep chugging on, the more attempts people make, the more likely we'll get another rare gem, and it doesn't even have to be anything like the original to be appreciated.
Though I am curious, in what way do you feel like the social agenda they pushed betrayed the original series? I imagine it would have to be more than casting women and non-white people. Did they do something with the story that really undermined the message of the original?
Using virtue signaling as a money grab doesn't make it more palatable in my opinion. There is obviously a ubiquitous corporate PR movement ongoing. Aunt Jemima will soon be Pearl Milling Company. Rainbow colors are more prominent in advertising since it's been in vogue. Twitch (owned by Amazon) is coming down on people for using words like "simp." The taste of populist appeasement is almost as bitter as the outright vitriol by many who virtue signal.
I didn't say it was palatable, all I said was that it doesn't remotely reflect on the value of the principles they're supposedly pushing. A bad movie is a bad movie.
As for the Twitch thing, that's not public appeasement. That's a purely economic decision, and a good one, from a corporate perspective. Words like "simp" were shaming men out of following and donating to female streamers, particularly those using sex appeal. Sexualized female streamers and their fans are a significant demographic for Twitch. Taking money out of that demographic is taking money out of the pockets of the company. They protected their interests.
QuietBeef said:Do you mean the movie, or the tweet? I suppose the answer is yes in either case, but in different ways.
The Tweet.
QuietBeef said:It seemed pretty mocking to me. I mean, it's comparing the gravity of feminism to the gravity of a slight temperature adjustment. I assumed that that trivializing was supposed to be the joke. If that was meant to be a feminist tweet, it's..... odd. lol But okay. People are odd.
Still, that's kind of beside the point, since you posted it in this thread for a reason, while saying your complaint has nothing to do with feminism. Unless you felt it related to the topic in some other way?
It came from Trudeau (liberal PM of Canada), it was meant to be earnest and positive. Though the delivery was rather awkward. Reason for posting it: Seemed like painful virtue signaling.
QuietBeef said:That's a strange thing to have contempt for. lol Artists toy with the reversal of concepts in media all the time.
The contempt comes more from how journalism has been pumping out material that falls in line with mainstream critical race theory, and the overall tendency of the tabloid format to contradict itself. Particularly in the last few years, somewhere around the end of Bush's term and the beginning of Trump's, the media started to become a prismatic source of sentiments that would evolve into cancel culture, more extreme levels of divisiveness, and levels of political correctness that has a pervasive reach as far as into stand-up comedy.
QuietBeef said:I could just as easily see the directors saying that sort of thing for, as you said yourself, virtue signaling. If you're going to be blatant about the political baiting, you may as well market it, right? They may have even believed they were doing something good. Granted, I haven't seen that show, so I don't know how sloppy or superficial the attempt at moral messaging was, but if it was as you say, then I doubt it's a subject the director and other major contributors truly cared about. Someone who's given real thought and care to a cause and aims to make changes through their art, can typically represent it better than creating a piece of media that has nothing to do with it and then awkwardly inserting some childishly superficial commentary on the subject. It betrays how little thought they actually gave it, how little it mattered to the story they were telling. Rather than it being a feminist or anti-racist piece of media, it's just a regular piece of media with a feminist or anti-racist logo slapped on it.
It is possible that the directors were baiting, but their words at least matched their output. It's easiest to illustrate with quotes:
Damon Lindelof said:Given the racial and gender politics of the show, I didn’t want this to just be a conversation between two white men. So I reached out to a group of women of various ethnic backgrounds who wrote a series of essays called “Women Watch the Watchmen” to ask them what they’d want to ask you. The first question comes from Chloe Maveal: “Do you feel like this show is something that can help redeem Watchmen to literally anyone who’s not part of a straight white male audience? Do you, as both a fan of the comics and showrunner of the TV series, feel like the comic books here need redeeming in the first place?”
Because I’m not Alan Moore, I get to make a Watchmen that’s like, “Here’s how I feel about female characters. Here’s how I feel about characters of color. Here’s how I feel about Rorschach.” I get to have those debates in the writers’ room. Those other writers get to say, “Well, here’s how I feel about it.” Of course, in the writers’ room, there was a wide range of whether or not Rorschach was a white supremacist. Rorschach, a.k.a. Walter Joseph Kovacs, is a costumed vigilante with a lethal streak and an unshakeable sense of right and wrong. Speaking of right: He’s profoundly socially conservative and an avid reader of a trashy right-wing magazine. In his diary, he writes about his distaste for queer people and other marginalized groups.. I said, “That’s not relevant. He’s dead. What’s interesting is that you can make a compelling argument that he was and I can make a compelling argument that he wasn’t.”
The show was generally well-received; I'm probably in a marginal opinion that it was used as social propaganda. The series starts off with a KKK assault on Black Wall Street from way back, and ends with the modern villains being a white supremacy sect. This was well-received for its progressive notions. I was left feeling like someone was trying to "educate" me.
There definitely are shows where there are slightly similar sentiments, but the execution doesn't muddy the plot, and the issues aren't just a logo slapped on it, like you said. The Boys comes to mind.
QuietBeef said:I'm not surprised this happened with Watchmen. But I'm not mad about it either. Almost any time there's a piece of successful and meaningful media, people who didn't fully understand the original will make bastardized versions. It doesn't make the original any less good. That's just purist thinking. The world is full of failed attempts to capture something better, and I say keep chugging on, the more attempts people make, the more likely we'll get another rare gem, and it doesn't even have to be anything like the original to be appreciated.
Though I am curious, in what way do you feel like the social agenda they pushed betrayed the original series? I imagine it would have to be more than casting women and non-white people. Did they do something with the story that really undermined the message of the original?
The original Watchmen dealt a lot with the themes of corruption, dysfunction, and pessimism. The most powerful characters were also the most dysfunctional. Rorschach was sociopathic and rigid in his morality from a harsh life. The Comedian was a rapist and murderer who thrived on chaos out of deep-seated pessimism. Dr. Manhattan could no longer identify with humanity. Ozymandias had little to no empathy, and was probably a narcissist. All meant to be heroes, all tremendously flawed in a world where the only way to get humans to cooperate is to either beat them down for a while, or threaten and fool them at a cost that doesn't sit easy for those who find out.
There are elements of corruption in the Watchmen show, but it's not about about the darkness of human nature. The focus there is social equality, brought into perspective by scenes of racist violence and protagonists who eschew racism. There is not much to be said for the darkness of man itself or its self-destructive nature. Nor are the protagonists flawed in the sense they were in the comics. These are straight-laced heroes with well-tuned moral compasses. Where the appeal of the comic and movie was ambiguity and shades of gray, the show is another iteration of good guys vs bad guys.
QuietBeef said:I didn't say it was palatable, all I said was that it doesn't remotely reflect on the value of the principles they're supposedly pushing. A bad movie is a bad movie.
I wasn't meaning to insinuate that you implied such a thing. That was basically just me giving some gripes that revolve around why I've made this a topic. The ethos of this kind of stuff is gross to me.
QuietBeef said:As for the Twitch thing, that's not public appeasement. That's a purely economic decision, and a good one, from a corporate perspective. Words like "simp" were shaming men out of following and donating to female streamers, particularly those using sex appeal. Sexualized female streamers and their fans are a significant demographic for Twitch. Taking money out of that demographic is taking money out of the pockets of the company. They protected their interests.
True.
QuietBeef said:So the anti-feminism tweet you posted was unrelated and you just didn't feel like making a new topic for it? lolYou don't see that as virtue signaling? Also it was a pro-feminist Tweet.
I must be missing the joke then, as it seems like he's saying that whether his AC is working or not is on par with Feminism. 🤷
In the case of the Watchmen TV series, the directors explicitly stated that their intent was social transformation, and that they are hoping more directors will follow in their vein.
Having not seen the interviews themselves, do you think that's legitimately the goal or is that just PR hype?
The line's razor thin between the two these days imo.
This was disappointing to me, as it betrayed the original vision of the comics and movie and hijacked the material for something else.
We're entering an age of fanfic spinoffs not too far off from shit like Star Wars Episode 7, and we have been for a while. Even Fifty Shades was originally a fanfic and that shit's like six years old now.
Aunt Jemima will soon be Pearl Milling Company.
Lol damn, it doesn't get whiter than that.
Rainbow colors are more prominent in advertising since it's been in vogue. Twitch (owned by Amazon) is coming down on people for using words like "simp."
The only way to stop this sort of thing would be to appeal to the larger corporations themselves, and they thanks to cancel culture are lobbying towards the sensitive demographics to survive.
It's like how 90s TV had much of it tackle anti-christian themes. In the end, virtue signaling lost to edge signaling, and once that gets too edgy the censor returns like a teeter totter.
Quietbeef said:Someone who's given real thought and care to a cause and aims to make changes through their art, can typically represent it better than creating a piece of media that has nothing to do with it and then awkwardly inserting some childishly superficial commentary on the subject. It betrays how little thought they actually gave it, how little it mattered to the story they were telling.
Though I am curious, in what way do you feel like the social agenda they pushed betrayed the original series? I imagine it would have to be more than casting women and non-white people. Did they do something with the story that really undermined the message of the original?
Watchmen felt like a macho grit piece of work, I can understand how that'd change the feel of it. It came out during the mid-eighties, and when compared to other pieces out around the same time it captures a feel that I'd argue would be completely lost in the modern era.
Much of what made Watchmen good was how hard the plot goes (ignoring how hard the movie softened it). People bleed after brutal meaty hits of combat, they are rude and gruff in a seasoned way that's significantly more old fashioned than what we see now, the idea of gender roles is much more 'traditional' in the behaviors of the characters in relation to their point in history to the point of making their female characters who are stuck in such patriarchy an interesting struggle story of their own... modernizing it will lose much of the original artistry.
Of course I'm saying all of this having not seen the TV spinoff, but the original Watchmen is a work of art that I'd argue is best left untouched. If they actually stuck to the grit of the original work as a baseline I don't think many companies would see it as capable of selling nowadays either.
Tryptamine said:The original Watchmen dealt a lot with the themes of corruption, dysfunction, and pessimism. The most powerful characters were also the most dysfunctional. Rorschach was sociopathic and rigid in his morality from a harsh life. The Comedian was a rapist and murderer who thrived on chaos out of deep-seated pessimism. Dr. Manhattan could no longer identify with humanity. Ozymandias had little to no empathy, and was probably a narcissist. All meant to be heroes, all tremendously flawed in a world where the only way to get humans to cooperate is to either beat them down for a while, or threaten and fool them at a cost that doesn't sit easy for those who find out.
There are elements of corruption in the Watchmen show, but it's not about about the darkness of human nature. The focus there is social equality, brought into perspective by scenes of racist violence and protagonists who eschew racism. There is not much to be said for the darkness of man itself or its self-destructive nature. Nor are the protagonists flawed in the sense they were in the comics. These are straight-laced heroes with well-tuned moral compasses. Where the appeal of the comic and movie was ambiguity and shades of gray, the show is another iteration of good guys vs bad guys.
I don't even know if they could combine the two concepts, 'the audience' might not be ready for it.
It'd be an equality piece if the race/sex equality fighters were roughly as flawed, but showing them as flawed is likely to be taken as sneak-attacking the LGBTQ cause. Much of why the white men in Watchmen could be made into such gruff, disturbed characters while translating as a good story in the modern age is over how they are themselves white men, make them women of color and critics will likely see it as an insult or stereotype of some kind.
