Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2023, 01:32:53 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 27, 2023, 08:58:25 PM
I've seen *many* films, for example, where the setting is Mongolian, Central Asian, Indian, or Chinese--and guess what? Not ONE rainbow hippo, not one white person, and not one black person is to be seen. And, as an added bonus, the men are all masculine and strong, and the women are feminine and normal--and even when the women are doing something heroic or extraordinary--there is zero empowered feminist BS being shoved down your throat.

Pure, glorious ethnic programs and media--without any of the ideological BS.

Quote from: SHARK on March 27, 2023, 08:58:25 PM
That kind of focus, artistic discipline, and authenticity of context is what is missing in the majority of anything made in America anymore.

I don't know what films you're thinking of, but usually it's the exact opposite. From what I've seen, Chinese films and Indian films are often highly ideological -- it's just that foreigners often don't recognize the ideological war that's being projected. Mainland Chinese cinema projects the government's myth that China is a monoculture without ethnic minorities like the Zhuang or Uyghur. Bollywood is also often seen as projecting a unified or at least moderate culture. Despite being in Hindi, they often downplay Hindu faith to the point of accusations of anti-Hindu bias and promoting Muslim stars. The Indian film board frequently censors independent movies for political content.

Internally, there is a lot of controversy over how films are biased compared to the reality of the country. The U.S. is about 60% white, so inclusion of the 40% non-white minority is often an issue. In India, about 40% of the population speaks Hindi vs Urdu and other languages - and about 80% of the population is Hindu. Those ethnic/linguistic/religious lines are usually the problems.

I feel this is like suggesting that 1950s American films and TV were non-ideological.

Greetings!

The different ethnic cultural films I have seen are typically historical films, whether Chinese, Indian, Mongolian, for example. The films don't have stupid non-historical white or black people in every fucking story and every fucking movie.

That's the point, Jhkim.

That's why I also said Authentic context. Mongolian films, Chinese films, Indian films--are in historical context.

The fact that there are a few minorities of different kinds that live in such nations...why is that important? The films are talking about Chinese, or Mongolian, or Indian history or events, or stories. The minorities are fucking entirely irrelevant.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Trond on April 01, 2023, 08:20:39 AM

Quote from: Wheetaye on March 25, 2023, 12:39:30 PM
....
Which is a long, rambling way of explaining why they made black Aragorn and others. They want to include black people, but don't want to/are too afraid to give them a dedicated story.

Notice how afraid they are of left-wing criticism (they practically bend over backwards to avoid it), but not right-wing.

That's because most US right-wing criticism tends to quickly become all about how "the Jews painted this picture using their French Space Laser from the dark side of the Moon, yo".

The core issue of the matter is an interesting one, though: Apparently, Warner Bros./NCL, in the biggest of possible FYs to Tolkien Enterprises, have partially copyrighted their designs from the movies - which, in turn, are based on the most popular depictions of Tolkien characters in 20th century art. So, even if Wizbro wanted to use designs resembling more traditional or conventional depictions of the characters and locations, they likely couldn't do so.

(This is also why all the ONCE IT GOES PUBIC DOMAEN IMMA WRITE MAH OWN HOBBERRRT stories are mostly coming from the same spring from which Justin LaNasa brews his coffee: if it works out, it should be a surprise to everyone.)

As to the card set itself, it's notably going to release during a time when Hasbro is arguably having the biggest downturn in the company's history: So, their next few signature products need to really make some money; it needs to outsell past sets, and it needs to really justify the expensive license. Will that be the case?

Both if it does and if it doesn't, it will probably take the edge off a lot of the "woke" excesses we have seen lately: From an investor's POV, the politicization of gaming at this level is just too risky, and the long-term value of these excesses is not conventionally calculable. Even in the relatively improbable event that the set is a huge hit and becomes a collector's item beyond the current installment of MtG, the accusations of silliness and virtue-signaling won't go away. That's literally not an image that Hasbro can afford any more.

Quote from: Rafael on April 03, 2023, 07:34:37 AM

Quote from: Trond on April 01, 2023, 08:20:39 AM

Quote from: Wheetaye on March 25, 2023, 12:39:30 PM
....
Which is a long, rambling way of explaining why they made black Aragorn and others. They want to include black people, but don't want to/are too afraid to give them a dedicated story.

Notice how afraid they are of left-wing criticism (they practically bend over backwards to avoid it), but not right-wing.

That's because most US right-wing criticism tends to quickly become all about how "the Jews painted this picture using their French Space Laser from the dark side of the Moon, yo".

No, it's because the Left is very good at, at best, making you a social pariah, or at worst, burning your city down.

Quote from: Trond on April 03, 2023, 02:26:30 PMNo, it's because the Left is very good at, at best, making you a social pariah, or at worst, burning your city down.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, necessarily, at least not in principle. The Twitter baristas are considerably more fearsome opponents than the "we're criticizing the same thing the loonies are howling about" crowd. We won't get to the actual discussion because corporate and feeder strategy is going to be to guilt everyone into buying their stuff, just as it was tried with "The Rings of Power", another, errrh, "moment of highness" in Tolkien franchise history.

Like, a Black "Lord of the Rings" wouldn't even be a bad idea - if people did it with finesse. But this, by itself, incredibly offensive tokenism is going to age like milk. --- Like, imagine how utterly ridiculous this is going to look, in a distance.

Quote from: SHARK on April 01, 2023, 03:08:08 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2023, 01:32:53 PM
I don't know what films you're thinking of, but usually it's the exact opposite. From what I've seen, Chinese films and Indian films are often highly ideological -- it's just that foreigners often don't recognize the ideological war that's being projected. Mainland Chinese cinema projects the government's myth that China is a monoculture without ethnic minorities like the Zhuang or Uyghur. Bollywood is also often seen as projecting a unified or at least moderate culture. Despite being in Hindi, they often downplay Hindu faith to the point of accusations of anti-Hindu bias and promoting Muslim stars. The Indian film board frequently censors independent movies for political content.

Internally, there is a lot of controversy over how films are biased compared to the reality of the country. The U.S. is about 60% white, so inclusion of the 40% non-white minority is often an issue. In India, about 40% of the population speaks Hindi vs Urdu and other languages - and about 80% of the population is Hindu. Those ethnic/linguistic/religious lines are usually the problems.

I feel this is like suggesting that 1950s American films and TV were non-ideological.

The different ethnic cultural films I have seen are typically historical films, whether Chinese, Indian, Mongolian, for example. The films don't have stupid non-historical white or black people in every fucking story and every fucking movie.

That's the point, Jhkim.

That's why I also said Authentic context. Mongolian films, Chinese films, Indian films--are in historical context.

I suspect we're talking past each other. Inserting non-historical white or black people is a unique feature of early 21st century American historical films, but there are tons of other ideological changes in films.

Late 20th century historical films like Braveheart (1995) or Gladiator (2000) don't have such non-historical ethnicity, but they are still ideological and have a lot of inauthentic approach to history. The inauthenticity shows up in other ways, like in how the historical context is edited to make a modern ideological point.

The same is true of a Chinese film like Hero (2002). Likewise, it doesn't insert black characters, but it is still very ideological in how it portrays Qin Shi Huang. The message includes avoiding violent rebellion despite oppressive government.

I'm picking big-budget well-known movies not because I think these are necessarily the movies you're thinking of -- but because we're not likely to have seen the same small movies.

Quote from: Rafael on April 03, 2023, 07:34:37 AM

Quote from: Trond on April 01, 2023, 08:20:39 AM

Quote from: Wheetaye on March 25, 2023, 12:39:30 PM
....
Which is a long, rambling way of explaining why they made black Aragorn and others. They want to include black people, but don't want to/are too afraid to give them a dedicated story.

Notice how afraid they are of left-wing criticism (they practically bend over backwards to avoid it), but not right-wing.

That's because most US right-wing criticism tends to quickly become all about how "the Jews painted this picture using their French Space Laser

This is only because the vast majority of right wingers are cowards who don't speak up or act out for fear of being called racist, so only the whackadoodles remain visible, The average right winge says "I'd like to speak out on this but I got kids and a job" while the Left has an army of perpetually online unemployed losers who get abortions more often than they change their shirt, so they make the most noise.

Some companies and institutions are just getting a whiff of the woke toast burning to realize that these people also have no money. When the financial bottom truly falls out, we'll see who is genuinely woke and who just wants their bread buttered. The free money era is over.

Quote from: jhkim on April 04, 2023, 02:27:07 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 01, 2023, 03:08:08 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2023, 01:32:53 PM
I don't know what films you're thinking of, but usually it's the exact opposite. From what I've seen, Chinese films and Indian films are often highly ideological -- it's just that foreigners often don't recognize the ideological war that's being projected. Mainland Chinese cinema projects the government's myth that China is a monoculture without ethnic minorities like the Zhuang or Uyghur. Bollywood is also often seen as projecting a unified or at least moderate culture. Despite being in Hindi, they often downplay Hindu faith to the point of accusations of anti-Hindu bias and promoting Muslim stars. The Indian film board frequently censors independent movies for political content.

Internally, there is a lot of controversy over how films are biased compared to the reality of the country. The U.S. is about 60% white, so inclusion of the 40% non-white minority is often an issue. In India, about 40% of the population speaks Hindi vs Urdu and other languages - and about 80% of the population is Hindu. Those ethnic/linguistic/religious lines are usually the problems.

I feel this is like suggesting that 1950s American films and TV were non-ideological.

The different ethnic cultural films I have seen are typically historical films, whether Chinese, Indian, Mongolian, for example. The films don't have stupid non-historical white or black people in every fucking story and every fucking movie.

That's the point, Jhkim.

That's why I also said Authentic context. Mongolian films, Chinese films, Indian films--are in historical context.

I suspect we're talking past each other. Inserting non-historical white or black people is a unique feature of early 21st century American historical films, but there are tons of other ideological changes in films.

Late 20th century historical films like Braveheart (1995) or Gladiator (2000) don't have such non-historical ethnicity, but they are still ideological and have a lot of inauthentic approach to history. The inauthenticity shows up in other ways, like in how the historical context is edited to make a modern ideological point.

The same is true of a Chinese film like Hero (2002). Likewise, it doesn't insert black characters, but it is still very ideological in how it portrays Qin Shi Huang. The message includes avoiding violent rebellion despite oppressive government.

I'm picking big-budget well-known movies not because I think these are necessarily the movies you're thinking of -- but because we're not likely to have seen the same small movies.

The difference is those other examples aren't literal acts of Ethnic Cleansing.

One of the most bizarre woke things I sometimes see in movies (and games, come to think of it) is not just that they beat us with their "message" sledgehammer, but that they are weirdly inconsistent about it. For instance, they want to show inclusion, so they put, say, women of color into all sorts of progressive roles in a pseudo-historical film, BUT they also show that men are being sexist and excluding towards women at every turn, because patriarchy. So how did all these downtrodden women turn out to be so on top of things? Off the top of my head Enola Holmes and the game 80 Days both struck me as being completely inconsistent in this way. 

Its not really hard to understand. They're only interested in virtue signaling. They really don't give 2 shits about the supposed issues they're pushing. So you get weirdly inconsistent storylines that are illogical (to say the least). A good example is The Force Awakens which set up that Finn may have some affinity to wield The Force, which was completely dumped in The Last Jedi in favor of making him not only the comic relief, but sidelining him to the extent his own heroic sacrifice is annulled in the last moment.

Quote from: Trond on April 08, 2023, 12:18:31 AM
One of the most bizarre woke things I sometimes see in movies (and games, come to think of it) is not just that they beat us with their "message" sledgehammer, but that they are weirdly inconsistent about it. For instance, they want to show inclusion, so they put, say, women of color into all sorts of progressive roles in a pseudo-historical film, BUT they also show that men are being sexist and excluding towards women at every turn, because patriarchy. So how did all these downtrodden women turn out to be so on top of things? Off the top of my head Enola Holmes and the game 80 Days both struck me as being completely inconsistent in this way.

In 1997, Patrick Stewart did a production of Othello where EVERY character was race-swapped. Whites were black, blacks were white. Stewart himself played Othello (who is, in the original play, Moorish). It was, IIRC, considered fascinating if a little weird.

Try to get away with THAT nowadays.

Quote from: Trond on April 08, 2023, 12:18:31 AM
One of the most bizarre woke things I sometimes see in movies (and games, come to think of it) is not just that they beat us with their "message" sledgehammer, but that they are weirdly inconsistent about it. For instance, they want to show inclusion, so they put, say, women of color into all sorts of progressive roles in a pseudo-historical film, BUT they also show that men are being sexist and excluding towards women at every turn, because patriarchy. So how did all these downtrodden women turn out to be so on top of things? Off the top of my head Enola Holmes and the game 80 Days both struck me as being completely inconsistent in this way.

I'm not familiar with 80 Days, but I saw the Netflix adaptation of Enola Holmes. It struck me as exactly the same trope of the underdog that's been present especially in young adult fiction for many decades. No one takes the protagonist seriously because they're from a socially unacceptable background, and they face constant prejudice against them -- but ultimately they prove their inherent worth by being better than the privileged types. We see similar inconsistency in, say, the movie Stripes, where a ragtag band of misfits outperform the elite squad despite goofing off through most of their training time.

In real life, the underdog usually loses -- but having the underdog win despite the odds against them is a staple of feel-good movies. Regardless of whether one likes it or not, I don't think it's a new thing that's peculiar to wokism.

Quote from: Trond on April 08, 2023, 12:18:31 AM
One of the most bizarre woke things I sometimes see in movies (and games, come to think of it) is not just that they beat us with their "message" sledgehammer, but that they are weirdly inconsistent about it. For instance, they want to show inclusion, so they put, say, women of color into all sorts of progressive roles in a pseudo-historical film, BUT they also show that men are being sexist and excluding towards women at every turn, because patriarchy. So how did all these downtrodden women turn out to be so on top of things? Off the top of my head Enola Holmes and the game 80 Days both struck me as being completely inconsistent in this way.

Why, they got to the top by being twice as good, and hard working, as the men, silly! Even with the ever present weight of the Patriarchy trying to artificially prop up the weak and stupid men, gurl power can not be suppressed!

Quote from: jhkim on April 11, 2023, 01:41:07 PM

Quote from: Trond on April 08, 2023, 12:18:31 AM
One of the most bizarre woke things I sometimes see in movies (and games, come to think of it) is not just that they beat us with their "message" sledgehammer, but that they are weirdly inconsistent about it. For instance, they want to show inclusion, so they put, say, women of color into all sorts of progressive roles in a pseudo-historical film, BUT they also show that men are being sexist and excluding towards women at every turn, because patriarchy. So how did all these downtrodden women turn out to be so on top of things? Off the top of my head Enola Holmes and the game 80 Days both struck me as being completely inconsistent in this way.

I'm not familiar with 80 Days, but I saw the Netflix adaptation of Enola Holmes. It struck me as exactly the same trope of the underdog that's been present especially in young adult fiction for many decades. No one takes the protagonist seriously because they're from a socially unacceptable background, and they face constant prejudice against them -- but ultimately they prove their inherent worth by being better than the privileged types. We see similar inconsistency in, say, the movie Stripes, where a ragtag band of misfits outperform the elite squad despite goofing off through most of their training time.

In real life, the underdog usually loses -- but having the underdog win despite the odds against them is a staple of feel-good movies. Regardless of whether one likes it or not, I don't think it's a new thing that's peculiar to wokism.

So you agree that Enola Holmes is an example of what Trond is saying, but you still want to claim it's not because reasons...