MovieChat Forums > kuku > Replies
kuku's Replies
<blockquote>Political stuff can work but it needs to be woven into the story not just the doctor ranting to the audience. </blockquote>
That can work only for wokes.
Imagine for a moment that the showrunner was Christian instead of woke. And the Doctor was traveling through time and space bringing the word of Jesus, showing how Christians were better than other people, with episodes like 'Blessed 55', 'Fugitive of the Atheists', 'Can you pray with me?' or 'The spiritual ascension of the Cybermen'. If some character said '<i>I didn't know the Doctor was a Christian activist</i>' he would answer '<i>I had an upgrade</i>'.
Would you like to watch such a series? Would you like to watch it if the Christian message was woven into the story? I know I wouldn't.
And it's the same for non-wokes with the current one.
Ask them. I guess they didn't expected it to flop when they launched it.
Because it was expected to flop harder. Duh.
'The Game' is something similar, but it's about a banker, not about a US president
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119174/
1. In Dracula? Nope, no strong female lead. And no strong male lead neither with the only exception of Van Helsing. Main characters in Gothic literature weren't particularly strong.
2. In Dracula? Nope, no blacks or indians or anything of the sort, unless such characters appear in the original work, which they don't. If you want to add new characters, make them consistent with the historical period and the genre.
3. Personally, I don't give a shit about the political opinions of the cast. I'm just not interested. Anyway, it's quite funny that you talk about some imaginary scenario where actors that don't think like James Woods are blacklisted while... in the real world, it's James Woods the one that has been actually blacklisted in Hollywood for his political opinions.
4. In Dracula? No politics unless it appears in the original work. Personally, I don't mind some politics in period dramas. Downton Abbey had quite some politics and I love the show. But, if you're doing a XIXth drama, I'd like to see XIXth politics and debates. Don't inject modern politics in a period drama. That's just concealed propaganda.
Ford vs Ferrari worked better than expected, but it wasn't enough to break even and it was a flop. Birds of Prey worked worse than expected, and it's a flop. End of the story.
She had half a dozen brothers and sisters and more than 30 nephews. And that's only family, not friends.
And while she was not rich enough to afford all kind of luxuries, I repeat, she could live comfortably without problems. This was her family house where she lived:
https://janeaustenshousemuseumblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/p1010902.jpg
It's not Downton Abbey, it's not rich, but I'd say it qualifies without problems as high middle class.
She was wealthy enough to live comfortably. And she was not alone, she was often surrounded by her family and friends.
And yeap, quoting Emma doesn't mean that was what Jane Austen thought. But it's a well argued and reasonable position. If we're gonna assign to her some position about this topic, at least, let's assign to her something she reasonably argued instead of some imaginary feminist principles.
Nope. A baked potato is already cooked 😄
Nope. She's a 'shapeshifter' archetype.
https://debravega.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/writers-know-your-archetypes-the-shapeshifter/
CONTINUE
<i>“Dear me! but what shall you do? how shall you employ yourself when you grow old?”
“If I know myself, Harriet, mine is an active, busy mind, with a great many independent resources; and I do not perceive why I should be more in want of employment at forty or fifty than one-and-twenty. Woman's usual occupations of hand and mind will be as open to me then as they are now; or with no important variation. If I draw less, I shall read more; if I give up music, I shall take to carpet-work. And as for objects of interest, objects for the affections, which is in truth the great point of inferiority, the want of which is really the great evil to be avoided in not marrying, I shall be very well off, with all the children of a sister I love so much, to care about. There will be enough of them, in all probability, to supply every sort of sensation that declining life can need. There will be enough for every hope and every fear; and though my attachment to none can equal that of a parent, it suits my ideas of comfort better than what is warmer and blinder. My nephews and nieces!—I shall often have a niece with me.”</i>
---
She thought that being wealthy and having numerous family (and that was the case with Austen), she could have a very comfortable life without being married. She didn't sacrifice anything for whatever imaginary principles modern feminist assigns to her. She just weighted the different options and chose the one that served her best.
<blockquote>Did she not turn down marriage with a wealthy man because it would have forced her to stop writing and start endangering her life by giving birth? She could have had a much more comfortable life but for her apparently feminist principles.</blockquote>
Jane Austen didn't care about such 'feminist principles' or nothing of the sort.
Let her explain herself:
<i>“That is as formidable an image as you could present, Harriet; and if I thought I should ever be like Miss Bates! so silly—so satisfied—so smiling—so prosing—so undistinguishing and unfastidious—and so apt to tell every thing relative to every body about me, I would marry to-morrow. But between us, I am convinced there never can be any likeness, except in being unmarried.”
“But still, you will be an old maid! and that's so dreadful!”
“Never mind, Harriet, I shall not be a poor old maid; and it is poverty only which makes celibacy contemptible to a generous public! A single woman, with a very narrow income, must be a ridiculous, disagreeable old maid! the proper sport of boys and girls, but a single woman, of good fortune, is always respectable, and may be as sensible and pleasant as any body else. And the distinction is not quite so much against the candour and common sense of the world as appears at first; for a very narrow income has a tendency to contract the mind, and sour the temper. Those who can barely live, and who live perforce in a very small, and generally very inferior, society, may well be illiberal and cross. This does not apply, however, to Miss Bates; she is only too good natured and too silly to suit me; but, in general, she is very much to the taste of every body, though single and though poor. Poverty certainly has not contracted her mind: I really believe, if she had only a shilling in the world, she would be very likely to give away sixpence of it; and nobody is afraid of her: that is a great charm.”</i>
CONTINUE
<blockquote>Perhaps it's because I was first introduced to Catwoman through the 60s Batman TV series and it was a black woman portraying her then. I do wonder if that caused such a ruckus at the time or if people were a little less precious about these things back then. It's weird, we seem more concerned about diverse casting now then we did back then when it was a real rarity.</blockquote>
It's concerning precisely because it has become systematic and almost mandatory.
There's a difference between the occasional whitewashing or blackwashing of a character. Damn, Much Ado About Nothing is one of my favorite movies, and Brannagh casted Denzel Washington to play a white character. But it's and old movie, it doesn't feel political, more like Brannagh thought he'd be the right actor. And he was right, Washington is absolutely brilliant in the role.
However, now that's more like a political/religious thing, making the positive characters black or female, while keeping the villains or the cucks as white males. It's not a rarity, it's widespread, and it shows a clear political/religious agenda.
Dude, you got that sentence for the wiki. And the link in the wiki to support it was to this page
https://collider.com/set-visit-rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes/85807/
The source was the director saying this:
<blockquote>“I hope that we’re building a platform for future films. We’re trying to plant a lot of the seeds for a lot of the things you are talking about in terms of the different apes and so forth.”</blockquote>
So, yeap, he hoped that he could make sequels. Duh. But that's different from planning a series of films, like they did in The Hobbit (for example) or with the failed The Mummy.
The wikipedia editor acted as a <b>tabloid</b>, rewriting what the director said in something different. Nothing new, the wikipedia quality has been going down since it was infiltrated by wokes.
<blockquote>Rise of the Planet of the Apes is 20th Century Fox's reboot of the Planet of the Apes series, intended to act as an origin story for a new series of films</blockquote>
That's <b>not</b> true.
They hoped the movie was successful enough to make sequels. That's quite common nowadays, about 99% of pop-corn movies are like that. That's different from planning a trilogy or a series of movies from the beginning, though.
That trilogy wasn't planned. It was going to be a single movie, but it was so successful that they made the sequels.
Half of the positive characters are black. The villains, as usual, are all white.
Most of the cast in Batman movies play villains. And of course, they're gonna be white.
Main characters? Well, Bruce and Alfred and still white (for now). Gordon is black, Selina is black, Lucius is black. In general, half of the positive characters (or conflictive at least, like Selina), they're black now.
So yeap, wokeness rising in DC too.
It's middle of March. They've suddenly decided to release it... just when the coronovirus is supposed to be kicking in and movie theaters will be probably empty.
Ok, you had a good point there.