[RD] Do 'woke' films go broke? (from LGBTQ news)

[Zardnaar]

I agree that diversity in shows/movies in general is a good thing to strive for, but there are places where it's minor but just feels forced, which is like "slight eye roll" - contributes nothing to the story, doesn't detract from it, but was clearly included just to check a diversity box. But then there are extreme cases where it feels like diversity is more important than telling a good story. It can often hinder telling a good story even. When inclusion takes precedence over a good plot, interesting characters, realistic dialogue, story consistency (meaning plot holes), world-building, lore, history, stuff like that, it's just kinda... obvious. It stands out. And those types of shows/movies tend to flop hard, because it's obvious even to most progressives that it's simply pandering & checking boxes.

Someone alluded to Velma up above. It's a great example. It's been described as "the show so woke it united the left & right in hatred of it". It was such obvious pandering that everyone on both sides hated it. Yes, it's getting a 2nd season, but I don't think it's from hate-watching - the viewership #'s are dismal. It's just that sometimes terrible shows get renewed.

Another indicator I've noticed is: if two characters engage in a fight, or an argument & you already know who is going to win based solely on their demographics, that's a case where people tend to tune out eventually regardless of political affiliation. Like, if there's a fight between a man & a woman & you already know going in the woman is going to win - only another woman can defeat her. Or if a black gay guy has a verbal dispute over what to do with white straight guy & you already know who is going to be correct down the line. Once or twice isn't what I'm talking about, but if it's always the case, that makes for poor story-telling (this tends to happen more in shows than films).

If the character who checks more diversity boxes always win in a fight or is always be proven right - that's pandering. And also boring. It eventually takes the suspense out of the story. If there's a murder mystery & there's one straight white male present & you kinda know from the start "he's the murderer" you don't really need to watch the rest of the movie. That's the type of stuff I think people object to. Eventually. After having seen it occur multiple times.

The other thing to look for is that if the lead is a woman, she will start the story as perfect - no flaws to overcome, no bad personality traits, no character arc, because she has nowhere to grow as a character. She just starts off as Day 1 Awesome Bad-Ass (or Day 1.5). Flawed characters are relatable, regardless of gender (or race or sexual orientation). People who overcome hardships, who aren't immediately liked by everyone they meet, who aren't always right & don't always win, who fail sometimes & have to rely on, even be rescued/helped by their compatriots, but triumph in the end - that's relatable, & aspirational. But when the female main character just starts at Level 20, that's not relatable (for not just men but I think women viewers as well). People want to their heroes to grow & overcome their flaws. A "hero" who starts out & ends up awesome & better than everyone is boring as a protagonist.

These are not universal of course. Just indications that a film/show might be perceived as "woke". I hate even using the term, but it's literally in the title of the thread, so that's my take on it what it describes when it's used pejoratively towards shows/movies. It's probably trivial to find individual counter-examples to my descriptions, but that's pointless; just as pointless as it would for me to list individual examples of it happening (other than the humorous example of Velma I suppose), which is why I didn't.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject of this stupid term.

Pretty good description of it.

 

[Narz]

My experience is that everyone is insane to varying degrees, there is no sanity or insanity, just 1,000 faces of madness.
Yes, is stole that from the Battle Angel Alita manga.

The internet is fun cuz you can say a silly thing and then see others spin in round and round, it's like that roschak blob test , everyone sees what they bring to seeing

 

[Arakhor]

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject of this stupid term.

The good thing about language is that we already have words to describe your feelings there - as you said, things that artlessly pander to a given demographic., but if a character is introduced who is perfect and has no flaws, that's not "woke", that's simply bad writing, and literally anyone who's ever consumed any media can tell you that.

As for the weekly murder mystery, it's typically the guest star of the week who is the obvious murderer, and especially in the 80s and 90s, that was indeed usually a straight, white man.

The main reason why 'woke' is a stupid word is because it was introduced by one demographic, co-opted by a larger group, then hijacked by the alt-right, and often used by centrists to cudgel the left with. It means only what the user wants it to mean and nothing else.

 

[Zardnaar]

The good thing about language is that we already have words to describe your feelings there - as you said, things that artlessly pander to a given demographic., but if a character is introduced who is perfect and has no flaws, that's not "woke", that's simply bad writing, and literally anyone who's ever consumed any media can tell you that.

As for the weekly murder mystery, it's typically the guest star of the week who is the obvious murderer, and especially in the 80s and 90s, that was indeed usually a straight, white man.

The main reason why 'woke' is a stupid word is because it was introduced by one demographic, co-opted by a larger group, then hijacked by the alt-right, and often used by centrists to cudgel the left with. It means only what the user wants it to mean and nothing else.

Well we keep hearing about language evolves in its meaning. And fascist thrown about all over the place these days.

I hate double standards and hypocrisy lol.

It gets used here in mainstream media both for and against

Stuff

i.stuff.co.nz

Basically means whatever to different people. For me it's a feral conservative type throwing it around or toxic/annoying/preachy progressive/movie etc. Common sense liberalism vs the toxic weaponised American internet variety.

Google search RNZ woke.

woke rnz - Google Suche

Stuff.co.nz.

woke stuff.co.nz - Google Suche

Probably the most common NZ sources outside NZ Herald (right wing bias).

So basically the US culture war is bleeding over a bit but hasn't reached the rancid depths it has in US.

 

[Narz]

I like "pearl clutching", I've seen it used more to describe right wing hysteria altho certainly the left does just as much

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'm sure you have examples right

 

[aelf]

I agree that diversity in shows/movies in general is a good thing to strive for, but there are places where it's minor but just feels forced, which is like "slight eye roll" - contributes nothing to the story, doesn't detract from it, but was clearly included just to check a diversity box. But then there are extreme cases where it feels like diversity is more important than telling a good story. It can often hinder telling a good story even. When inclusion takes precedence over a good plot, interesting characters, realistic dialogue, story consistency (meaning plot holes), world-building, lore, history, stuff like that, it's just kinda... obvious. It stands out. And those types of shows/movies tend to flop hard, because it's obvious even to most progressives that it's simply pandering & checking boxes.

Someone alluded to Velma up above. It's a great example. It's been described as "the show so woke it united the left & right in hatred of it". It was such obvious pandering that everyone on both sides hated it. Yes, it's getting a 2nd season, but I don't think it's from hate-watching - the viewership #'s are dismal. It's just that sometimes terrible shows get renewed.

Another indicator I've noticed is: if two characters engage in a fight, or an argument & you already know who is going to win based solely on their demographics, that's a case where people tend to tune out eventually regardless of political affiliation. Like, if there's a fight between a man & a woman & you already know going in the woman is going to win - only another woman can defeat her. Or if a black gay guy has a verbal dispute over what to do with white straight guy & you already know who is going to be correct down the line. Once or twice isn't what I'm talking about, but if it's always the case, that makes for poor story-telling (this tends to happen more in shows than films).

If the character who checks more diversity boxes always win in a fight or is always be proven right - that's pandering. And also boring. It eventually takes the suspense out of the story. If there's a murder mystery & there's one straight white male present & you kinda know from the start "he's the murderer" you don't really need to watch the rest of the movie. That's the type of stuff I think people object to. Eventually. After having seen it occur multiple times.

The other thing to look for is that if the lead is a woman, she will start the story as perfect - no flaws to overcome, no bad personality traits, no character arc, because she has nowhere to grow as a character. She just starts off as Day 1 Awesome Bad-Ass (or Day 1.5). Flawed characters are relatable, regardless of gender (or race or sexual orientation). People who overcome hardships, who aren't immediately liked by everyone they meet, who aren't always right & don't always win, who fail sometimes & have to rely on, even be rescued/helped by their compatriots, but triumph in the end - that's relatable, & aspirational. But when the female main character just starts at Level 20, that's not relatable (for not just men but I think women viewers as well). People want to their heroes to grow & overcome their flaws. A "hero" who starts out & ends up awesome & better than everyone is boring as a protagonist.

These are not universal of course. Just indications that a film/show might be perceived as "woke". I hate even using the term, but it's literally in the title of the thread, so that's my take on it what it describes when it's used pejoratively towards shows/movies. It's probably trivial to find individual counter-examples to my descriptions, but that's pointless; just as pointless as it would for me to list individual examples of it happening (other than the humorous example of Velma I suppose), which is why I didn't.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject of this stupid term.

If it's so trivial to find examples of what you're describing, then I'd like to see some.

Previously, it was often the case that you saw a minority sidekick, high chance they'd be eliminated in some way. What was that then? Anti-woke?

 

[Zardnaar]

If it's so trivial to find examples of what you're describing, then I'd like to see some.

Previously, it was often the case that you saw a minority sidekick, high chance they'd be eliminated in some way. What was that then? Anti-woke?

A big list of shows and movies was provided earlier. Kinda got ignored.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Sadly, it's that 4% who are vastly over-represented in US federal and state government right now.

The best words that have came out of this forum about politics.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Babylon 5, Farscape, Stargate SG1 weren't that bad S1 and they were contemporary with Trek.

Season 1 of Babylon 5 is iffy, in my opinion it had a lot of duds, Season 2 was better, again, writing. Stargate SG1 didn't take itself too seriously plus they had Richard Dean Anderson. Never seen Farscape.

 

[Zardnaar]

Season 1 of Babylon 5 is iffy, in my opinion it had a lot of duds, Season 2 was better, again, writing. Stargate SG1 didn't take itself too seriously plus they had Richard dead Anderson. Never seen Farscape.

It's not as good as the other seasons but it's magnificent compared to TNG S1 or most Trek post 1987.

Only DS9 and Strange New Worlds actually have a half decent S1.

Alot of other sci fi shows or shows in general do better seasons one. At least the ones that don't get canceled.

 

[Broken_Erika]

It's not as good as the other seasons but it's magnificent compared to TNG S1 or most Trek post 1987.

Only DS9 and Strange New Worlds actually have a half decent S1.

Alot of other sci fi shows or shows in general do better seasons one. At least the ones that don't get canceled.

Babylon 5 S1 was hard to watch sometimes but nearly every episode layed down something that would get picked up later. DS9 had actors who could make the most ridiculous storylines seem engaging.

 

[Zardnaar]

Babylon 5 S1 was hard to watch sometimes but nearly every episode layed down something that would get picked up later. DS9 had actors who could make the most ridiculous storylines seem engaging.

Yup early TNG is really bad. Same with Voyager gave that a shot couldn't do it. Really annoying alien Neelix iirc.

 

[Kyriakos]

Would Verhoeven films be "anti-woke"? They are satire, but with anti-woke stereotypes everywhere.

 

[Arwon]

I think he'd call you a tedious fool for even posing the question to him tbh

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think so. Assuming Verhoeven isn't a moron himself, he'd have gotten this wasn't a question but an implicit comment.

 

[Samson]

I agree that diversity in shows/movies in general is a good thing to strive for, but there are places where it's minor but just feels forced, which is like "slight eye roll" - contributes nothing to the story, doesn't detract from it, but was clearly included just to check a diversity box. But then there are extreme cases where it feels like diversity is more important than telling a good story. It can often hinder telling a good story even. When inclusion takes precedence over a good plot, interesting characters, realistic dialogue, story consistency (meaning plot holes), world-building, lore, history, stuff like that, it's just kinda... obvious. It stands out. And those types of shows/movies tend to flop hard, because it's obvious even to most progressives that it's simply pandering & checking boxes.

Someone alluded to Velma up above. It's a great example. It's been described as "the show so woke it united the left & right in hatred of it". It was such obvious pandering that everyone on both sides hated it. Yes, it's getting a 2nd season, but I don't think it's from hate-watching - the viewership #'s are dismal. It's just that sometimes terrible shows get renewed.

Another indicator I've noticed is: if two characters engage in a fight, or an argument & you already know who is going to win based solely on their demographics, that's a case where people tend to tune out eventually regardless of political affiliation. Like, if there's a fight between a man & a woman & you already know going in the woman is going to win - only another woman can defeat her. Or if a black gay guy has a verbal dispute over what to do with white straight guy & you already know who is going to be correct down the line. Once or twice isn't what I'm talking about, but if it's always the case, that makes for poor story-telling (this tends to happen more in shows than films).

If the character who checks more diversity boxes always win in a fight or is always be proven right - that's pandering. And also boring. It eventually takes the suspense out of the story. If there's a murder mystery & there's one straight white male present & you kinda know from the start "he's the murderer" you don't really need to watch the rest of the movie. That's the type of stuff I think people object to. Eventually. After having seen it occur multiple times.

The other thing to look for is that if the lead is a woman, she will start the story as perfect - no flaws to overcome, no bad personality traits, no character arc, because she has nowhere to grow as a character. She just starts off as Day 1 Awesome Bad-Ass (or Day 1.5). Flawed characters are relatable, regardless of gender (or race or sexual orientation). People who overcome hardships, who aren't immediately liked by everyone they meet, who aren't always right & don't always win, who fail sometimes & have to rely on, even be rescued/helped by their compatriots, but triumph in the end - that's relatable, & aspirational. But when the female main character just starts at Level 20, that's not relatable (for not just men but I think women viewers as well). People want to their heroes to grow & overcome their flaws. A "hero" who starts out & ends up awesome & better than everyone is boring as a protagonist.

These are not universal of course. Just indications that a film/show might be perceived as "woke". I hate even using the term, but it's literally in the title of the thread, so that's my take on it what it describes when it's used pejoratively towards shows/movies. It's probably trivial to find individual counter-examples to my descriptions, but that's pointless; just as pointless as it would for me to list individual examples of it happening (other than the humorous example of Velma I suppose), which is why I didn't.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject of this stupid term.

I guess then the question is why this particular sort of inclusion generates so much vitriol. We have got quite used to movies and tv having features to appeal to particular demographics, whether that is the sex and violence that appeals to young men or the puppies and kittens than appeals to children we accept it an judge the film on its merits. When it is a different demographic some people have to make a whole thing about it.

 

[aelf]

A big list of shows and movies was provided earlier. Kinda got ignored.

The ChatGPT lists?

 

[Zardnaar]

The ChatGPT lists?

No they asked for examples of woke stuff that flopped. P

There's the occasional exception but it also kinda depends on genre, how string it's pushed and if it's a remake/reboot of 80s IP etc.

 

[Angst]

Would Verhoeven films be "anti-woke"? They are satire, but with anti-woke stereotypes everywhere.

i've only seen starship troopers. so short note on that

calling that anti-woke would be missing the point entirely, and the movie is both a bit subtle and not at all

however, it's not that simple

it actively indulges in the fascist fantasy specifically to embody how such a world and how its propaganda can draw you in with manipulation and excitement. but look just past the immediate surface level and it's an absurd dystopia. you get drawn in killing the Great Other and then Barney shows up in an ss uniform. the point so cut & dry that many people feel it's way too blunt.

now that said; there's a clear point and a movie's function. it succeeded in its parody a little too well, to put it simply. i know back in the day people actually didn't think beyond the basic surface level subtext and often just thought it a dumb alien shooty movie, even if exciting (this says a lot about the "end of history" 90s). and whatever the very obvious point, it succeeded so much in what it tried to be that it has been coopted by assorted alt-right groups online, who swear by it and note, at the same time, that it's not fascist at all, guys (because they know embracing something fascist and calling it fascist is still a losing battle). i was in a starship troopers meme group for a bit and jumped ship very quickly because of what was happening. so the movie very clearly delineates fascist thinking in our world, and how charming it can be. but functionally because it succeeds like that it is used for far right propaganda; they understand the just-below-the-surface rampant fascism and they like that.

i love the movie, but there's a real danger in making fascism sexy, even when you're making a point about how sexy fascism lures us in.

so text would be (sigh) "woke", whatever that means. but authors don't control the usage of texts, or whenever readers agree with the villain. see eg thanos. and the question then becomes "is a movie anti-woke if it's often used as such?"

even stuff like american history x is coopted this way. lindsay ellis made a pretty good video where she talked about springtime for hitler, where she pointed out that a lot of sexy-fascism-deconstruction movies have been coopted by the far right - but they can never coopt can-can gay goosestep hitler.