Oh right. Weird how Eva extrapolated that to an entire bunch of posters then.I did, I said the country was collectively stupid enough to repeatedly vote Law and Justice, but I've said the same exact thing about any other country dumb enough to elect conservatives (yes including the US) so
Figure the point still stands.
And maybe he's being an anti-American snob.
Because it's not about a definition that has been explained many times. It about specific posters' specific responses on this site. See below in my reply to Lex for a better explanation...
Well, people keep asking what it means (I hate the term myself - it's so watered down as to be pointless, so I try not to even use it in my posts - don't always succeed, but try). But then when people on this site (not "many people") give their personal interpretation & try to answer the question that gets asked, it would be nice to have that response actually addressed, even picked apart, from the people who asked the question.
Because it's not about a definition that has been explained many times. It about specific posters' specific responses on this site. See below in my reply to Lex for a better explanation...
Well, people keep asking what it means (I hate the term myself - it's so watered down as to be pointless, so I try not to even use it in my posts - don't always succeed, but try). But then when people on this site (not "many people") give their personal interpretation & try to answer the question that gets asked, it would be nice to have that response actually addressed, even picked apart, from the people who asked the question.
Instead of falling back on "aha, so you mean it has a [X] person in it!" It's dismissive. If someone simply wants to say exactly what you just said, that's totally fine, but the typical response to a "nuanced, detailed explanation" is just... not to listen & fall back on what some nebulous "other people say" instead of maybe asking for clarification, or disagreeing on a particular point. If people want to rail against what other people on the internet have said, then why bother asking other posters on this site for their particular insights on the phenomenon?
It also gets wearing when you get asked something, answer it in detail in good faith, & then get the same generic strawmen thrown back at you instead of just doing what you just did & saying why the explanation doesn't resonate for you.
All that said, I appreciate your response.
"When a series is made for a huge mass of viewers, with different experiences, from different parts of the world, and a large part of them are Americans, these simplifications not only make sense, they are necessary. It’s painful for us, and for me too, but the higher level of nuance and complexity will have a smaller range, it won’t reach people. Sometimes it may go too far, but we have to make these decisions and accept them." - Tomek Baginski
He's basically claiming that the viewers of a show he co-produces, especially the American viewers, are unable to understand the books, hence the need to simplify and change the source material. Did you hear that gringos, he was actually doing you a favor.
Done!
Here's what my first Barbie looked like. Her name is Fluff (presumably because of her fluffy blonde hair). She wears ballerina flats for shoes, and came with a skateboard.
View attachment 669435
I still have mine, though she's been damaged over the years of being played with.
Not exactly "German hooker" material, in my view.
(I don't think this photo is of a first edition, as my doll's skirt is orange, not pink.)
My second Barbie was Talking Christie:
View attachment 669439
This isn't quite the same outfit mine had, though the orange shorts are the same. Pull the ring, and she says things like, "Hi! I'm called Christie!" and "I love to try on clothes." and "I want to be a fashion model." and so on. Christie was obsessed with fashion. I still have her, as well, though the talking mechanism doesn't work anymore and she had some rough treatment over the years. Some of the things I put my dolls through...
I also had Living Francie:
View attachment 669441
She came with a variety of things like a suitcase, TV, tray with dishes on it, and I don't recall what else. She had low-heel shoes - between the stiletto heels and the ballerina flats.
Then came Walk Lively Ken:
View attachment 669443
There was a wheeled stand to put him in, and when you pushed it, his arms and head would move; this would also happen if you moved his legs like he was walking. I've still got him, too.
Finally, the last of the Barbies I regularly played with, was Quick Curl Kelley:
View attachment 669444
She came with a comb, barrettes, and plastic curling iron-shaped gadget so you could style her hair (it was more bristly than normal Barbie hair so it would hold its shape). I have two of these dolls. One has her hair in braids and the other one has a Farrah Fawcett-type hairstyle (hey, it was the '70s...).
No "German hookers" here.
Why shouldn't it be a gay love story? I haven't seen the movie, but whatever... all I ask of movies and stories is that the characters be well-written and that the story makes sense. When it comes to fanfiction and same-sex pairings, keeping the characters in character is also important.
Example: That scene in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban where Sirius Black and Remus Lupin share a brief hug was the catalyst for a huge subgenre of Harry Potter fanfiction that has its own name: Wolfstar. My take on this is that Remus and Tonks had NO chemistry. Tonks was actually a pretty boring character most of the time, so there are very few of those stories I care to read. Whether the story pairs Sirius and Remus with women or with each other, all I ask is consistent, well-written characterization, an engaging story, and that it not just be a too-detailed play-by-play of smut.
So... Brokeback Mountain. Haven't seen it. If it ever turns up on Saturday Night Cinema on PBS, I might.
What does this even mean?
LOL. I haven't seen Passion of the Christ, but I've seen The Ten Commandments... maybe a couple of dozen times? Maybe more. It used to be an annual tradition for my grandmother and me, that on Easter Sunday, ABC would run this movie and she'd let me stay up late to watch it with her.
I've seen it so many times over the years and honestly, the more I watch it, the more preachy it seems, to the point where older Moses is basically a caricature.
It's still a fantastic piece of filmmaking, though. That 'hounds and jackals' game that Nefertiri plays with Pharaoh is like Senet - which is available on Steam, and I enjoy playing it now and then.
There are Native American Barbies (though marketed as "Eskimo Barbie"; that's a problem nowadays as 'Eskimo' is considered a slur and the correct term is 'Inuit'). I've got one. No, she did not come with an igloo and sled dog.
Have you read the Villeneuve Dune arguments recently? The new fans are... disrespectful, to put it politely.
I thought they already did some Snow White remakes? I've only ever seen the Disney cartoon. The Little Golden Book version gave me nightmares when I was about 8.
Mind you, when I was 8, I also thought about how Snow White looked more like a child than a woman, and wondered why the dwarfs were going to make her sleep outside in the forest, and then put her into a crystal coffin where she wouldn't be able to breathe. Addressing these points might make sense to a modern audience.
I don't think so, though the critics and certain emphatic individuals (some on this forum) throw Rotten Tomatoes stats in my face as though that's supposed to validate what is, after all, merely an opinion. It's not like gravity or the Laws of Motion.
The more people talk about something, the more likely they will want to see it.
I remember the hullabaloo over The Last Temptation of Christ, with church groups picketing theatres. I decided to see it for myself, to see what all the fuss was about. Turns out, it wasn't really worth the fuss, and if the picketers had actually watched for themselves, they'd have realized that the "temptation" was successfully resisted, and the ending actually reinforces their beliefs.
The rest of your sentence appears to be missing.
The Handmaid's Tale showrunner made the decision to have a diverse cast rather than adhere to the blatant racism of the Sons of Jacob.
Of course. Mind you, I could easily have my own version of "Hijab Barbie" if I wanted. There are patterns online, I have fabric in my craft collection, plus scissors, needles, thread...
I've found that when something is dumbed down, it's usually because the showrunner doesn't understand it.
So Villeneuve, when he dumbed down Dune, did it for worldwide audiences, and not North American audiences? Mind you... Villeneuve has shown multiple times that he doesn't actually understand some parts of Dune anyway.
Whatever this is, it's geoblocked in Canada.
It doesn’t encapsulates an aggressive push for diversity, equity, inclusion, usually based on the belief that outcomes which lack these things are indicative of discrimination and/or unfair social treatment. In a nutshell, an aggressive push for social justice agendas that are used as a bludgeon to hit over people's heads. As Rob said, it doesn't encapsulates the trends that has been happening in the past decade where progressive and/or leftists agendas and ideals are being shoehorned in and used as a bludgeon over the audience's head. I know BreadTubers poke fun at conservatives saying that franchises like Metal Gear and Fallout are non-woke, But here's the thing the messaging is subtle and not all in your face and doesn't use this decade's politics as a crutch and still lets the audience have a moment to be away from present day politics (Which most present day games sorely lack).
I’d argue “fascist” and "Nazi" is mostly used incoherently and pejoratively as a synonym for “thing or person I do not like”.
Is this said female action protagonist well written and not a girl boss misandrist? Are non-white characters well written and interesting? Or are they just added in just to boost ESG scores, earn brownie points on Twitter and Tumblir, and/or to appease the company's HR department?
Do these classes, when they involve talking about the evils in our past, put all the blame and burden on white students? Are white students made to go through a struggle session to atone for slavery when they weren't even born in that era nor had any ancestors related to said slave owner? I am not against a history class that talks about the evils of the past, What I am against is using that history as a justification to punish and blame students on the basis of their demographics that places them on the "oppressor" side and the "sins of our father" nonsense that would make Kim Jong-il smile.
Hello reductio ad Hitlerum, I see Godwyn’s Law is well alive in 2023.
What you don't seem to get is it really doesn't matter what you think. What you can bring up on this topic is merely academic. You might see it as legitimate topic for discussion on an internet forum, but it's completely irrelevant to those who end up, one way or another, targeted by ideologies that promote 'wokeness' as a negative thing.
I’m sort of at my wits end when explaining and giving a definition to the term woke and it’s derivatives. Only to be given bad faith responses and enough strawmen to keep me warm for the winter from leftists and/or progressives since the definition given goes against their narrative.
I’d wouldn’t be labeled as woke garbage. Yet it would still revive the same criticism of poor writing (In this case, the character in question would be a Marty Stu, same concept for Mary Sue but applied to male characters) and comparisons to a Rambo movie.
Well then why are any of us here? Why are we discussing this even? Why do we discuss anything on this forum? Politics, Economy, the Ukraine War? Why bother if it's irrelevant when "we" discuss it here among ourselves?
I mean, is this comment really necessary?
