Fallout (Amazon)

[Zavulon]

Just finished watching. Never played the game, so just my impressions of the series. It's pretty nice visual novel, but it lacks good chasing scenes to become a good western.
Heroes are pretty childish, including formally 200 year old grown-ups. Generally talking, in this work the spiritually offensive and physically unclean are united. All what I love. Boys and girls eking out their living for nothing in the wandering and vicissitudes, in a vain attempt to return into their cribs.
But anyway, as I said it was pretty entertaining. I'm going to sleep with it, and may be tomorrow I'll write a bit more.

 

[Mushroom]

You gotta get past the Woke / Trans stuff and enjoy the Fantasy that they blow wheelbarrows of $$$ at

Sorry, but I refuse to do that.

I still remember the distaste I felt when I watched the attempt at continuing the "Willow" story not all that long ago. And the simple fact is, when the writers are spending so much time pushing their agendas, it results in shoddy and bad work that is largely unwatchable. Now I loved the original movie, as did my kids. And my son and I both watched the first episode of that abomination, and within 10 minutes we looked at each other and as I left the room he turned it off. The woke agenda felt as subtle as if they had pounded it in with a sledgehammer, and the writing was absolutely beyond belief. I think the final straw for me was when one of the characters said to another to "suck it up". That was about the ultimate in lazy writing, where they literally insert a WWII slang term into what is supposed to be a fantasy story.

Thankfully, Fallout did not suffer from that, and it was actually refreshing to see something that was not. I even chuckled a bit at the insertion of incest, as that was not something I had expected in the modern era.

And I also have to admit, I greatly enjoyed how much of it was shot on real location, with practical effects. It was not one of the modern abominations where absolutely everything is CGI. I know I felt a lot of distaste for Dr. Strange MOM when I saw that a simple shot from a skyscraper looking down onto the city street was CGI. Who in the hell authorized that freaking waste of money, creating CGI buildings, street, cars, and people on the sidewalk that did not look at all real. Were they too freaking lazy to go out with a B crew and actually film it live somewhere?

And to be honest, the first MCU movie in years I am looking forward to is Deadpool 2. And for part of the same reason, from so many of the photos and information that have been leaked, a good deal of that was shot on location with practical effects.

 

[Zavulon]

Sorry, but I refuse to do that.

I still remember the distaste I felt when I watched the attempt at continuing the "Willow" story not all that long ago. And the simple fact is, when the writers are spending so much time pushing their agendas, it results in shoddy and bad work that is largely unwatchable. Now I loved the original movie, as did my kids. And my son and I both watched the first episode of that abomination, and within 10 minutes we looked at each other and as I left the room he turned it off. The woke agenda felt as subtle as if they had pounded it in with a sledgehammer, and the writing was absolutely beyond belief. I think the final straw for me was when one of the characters said to another to "suck it up". That was about the ultimate in lazy writing, where they literally insert a WWII slang term into what is supposed to be a fantasy story.

Thankfully, Fallout did not suffer from that, and it was actually refreshing to see something that was not. I even chuckled a bit at the insertion of incest, as that was not something I had expected in the modern era.

And I also have to admit, I greatly enjoyed how much of it was shot on real location, with practical effects. It was not one of the modern abominations where absolutely everything is CGI. I know I felt a lot of distaste for Dr. Strange MOM when I saw that a simple shot from a skyscraper looking down onto the city street was CGI. Who in the hell authorized that freaking waste of money, creating CGI buildings, street, cars, and people on the sidewalk that did not look at all real. Were they too freaking lazy to go out with a B crew and actually film it live somewhere?

And to be honest, the first MCU movie in years I am looking forward to is Deadpool 2. And for part of the same reason, from so many of the photos and information that have been leaked, a good deal of that was shot on location with practical effects.

I definitely can't be sure, but as for me, the lack of the happy homosexual couples doesn't mean the lack of the woke ideology.
It seems to me, that this ideology wasn't pounded in with a slagehammer, but rather was an organic and necessary part of the whole story. That's why the result is that nice.
First of all, the visual part - one main hero is a woman, another is black, third is a "dead white man".
Second - the conspiracy of the large corporations against ordinary people and unsaid straightly idea that it's better be red, than dead. Say nothing about their quest for the "clean energy".
Third - those three heroes are, definitely, members of their communities, and all three commit a treason against them.

 

[Mushroom]

I definitely can't be sure, but as for me, the lack of the happy homosexual couples doesn't mean the lack of the woke ideology.
It seems to me, that this ideology wasn't pounded in with a slagehammer, but rather was an organic and necessary part of the whole story. That's why the result is that nice.
First of all, the visual part - one main hero is a woman, another is black, third is a "dead white man".
Second - the conspiracy of the large corporations against ordinary people and unsaid straightly idea that it's better be red, than dead. Say nothing about their quest for the "clean energy".
Third - those three heroes are, definitely, members of their communities, and all three commit a treason against them.

However, you also have already stated that you never played the games. And if you had done so, you would know that there really are no "broader communities" in the game at all. Each is a little microcosm into themselves. No two vaults are the same, no two Brotherhood of Steel chapters are the same, no two wasteland settlements are the same. It was from the start a kind of cheeky campy horror game.

In fact, if anything the average wastelander is the least dysfunctional of any of the groups. But notice I also said "average" there also, as some were pretty damned messed up. The games actually included communities where everybody believed they were vampires, where cannibalism was expected of all their members, And yet another where it is run entirely by kids, and when they reach 16 they are kicked out.

 

[Zavulon]

However, you also have already stated that you never played the games. And if you had done so, you would know that there really are no "broader communities" in the game at all. Each is a little microcosm into themselves. No two vaults are the same, no two Brotherhood of Steel chapters are the same, no two wasteland settlements are the same. It was from the start a kind of cheeky campy horror game.

In fact, if anything the average wastelander is the least dysfunctional of any of the groups. But notice I also said "average" there also, as some were pretty damned messed up. The games actually included communities where everybody believed they were vampires, where cannibalism was expected of all their members, And yet another where it is run entirely by kids, and when they reach 16 they are kicked out.

Sure. I don't say that there are actual communities of vault dwellers or Brothers of steel. But, Lucy betrayed her own father and the values of their threeunited community of the Vaults 31,32 and 33. Maximus betrayed his own Knight, and even the Ghouls killed and ate his own fellow "ghoul in distress".

I do not say those were right or wrong choices in the given circumstances. I say, that the creators of this series show us that in some circumstances treason can be justified. "You may be a member of community, but you shouldn't follow the rules of the community".

Here is anti-traditional woke ideology, as far as I can understand it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Fallout series snuck a gender nonbinary character right past you guys.

The same thing probably happens in real life nearly every day. You don't even notice. Because the overblown crybabying about this "wokeness" is much louder than the wokeness itself.

 

[Grumpyolman]

Seen from a political perspective, the TV series was representative of the folly of extremism on both sides of the political spectrum. Maybe that's why it's been so popular.

 

[Montrovant]

The Fallout series snuck a gender nonbinary character right past you guys.

The same thing probably happens in real life nearly every day. You don't even notice. Because the overblown crybabying about this "wokeness" is much louder than the wokeness itself.

I was uncertain about the character's gender when I watched the show, but it didn't really matter. Now I see that that may have been intentional. Of course, I would have thought that having a black man as one of the main characters, a woman as another, and someone involved in an interracial relationship as a third, would make the show 'woke'. I don't know how that term is defined by any given person, I guess.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I was uncertain about the character's gender when I watched the show, but it didn't really matter.

Exactly.

 

[Mushroom]

The Fallout series snuck a gender nonbinary character right past you guys.

Not really, because nowhere in the show did they ever indicate what the sexuality of Dane was. Not a single time. Because ultimately, Dane was as "gender nonbinary" as Gary Webb, more commonly known as Gary Numan, David Bowie, or Annie Lennox. Their stage personas were very much an androgynous appearance, but that was based on their own looks and their stage persona. In reality, those three artists between them had rather clear genders, and had 7 children between them.

Simply having a "somewhat androgynous appearance" does not make one "gender nonbinary". One is largely genetics and the other is quite often in the modern era a mental illness. And we have all known people like that, a boyish looking girl or a girlish looking boy does not mean they are "gender nonbinary". Especially as that chapter of the BoS appears to be only composed of men. Therefore Dane must identify as male, or he would not be there.

 

[Mushroom]

Of course, I would have thought that having a black man as one of the main characters, a woman as another, and someone involved in an interracial relationship as a third, would make the show 'woke'.

It all depends on how it is made a part of the story.

I can go through a huge number of stories in the past that can be like that, starting with "Soylent Green" all the way back in 1972. Where the love interest of the very Macho lead actor was black. And for the most part, even 5 decades ago nobody gave a damn (and the few that did care did not matter).

The big problem with "woke" is how such things are integrated into the story. Could the story have turned into a "woke-fest"? Sure, it could have done that easily. But it never did, because the writers and showrunners had far more respect for the source material and actually had a good story to tell without injecting that into the story.

One of the things I appreciated is that each of the characters was flawed. Each in their own way, and none of those flaws had anything to do with their gender or ethnicity. Lucy was not absolutely awesome just because she was female. Maximus was not absolutely amazing just because he was black. Each was a rather well fleshed out character in the modern era, with good and bad points in their characters.

And one of the first things that shows that was Lucy and Monty. She does not question the multiple things he does that is "wrong", until after they had gotten it on until she hears gunfire in the distance. And in their fight, it is brutal and she not only barely knocks him out she is badly wounded in the process. If the show had gone "woke", she would have been a Sherlock Holmes and been the first one to realize that he was a raider, and taken him out within seconds with no injury to herself. Then gone on to warn everybody else before they could have killed anybody.

With Maximum, one of the first things we see of the BoS Aspirants is that they often attack each other, and there is no one thing that causes it. If say they seemed to specifically target minorities then he could be made to be the best ever because he overcame that, and would then do all he could to help rise others out of similar situations. But we see others they attack, and there never seems to be anything in particular that makes them stand out from the others.

One of the things that always stood out in the series is that every group is flawed. There is no "black and white", everybody is some shade of grey. And they kept that very much in mind when creating the characters, and every single one of them reflects that. The good guys have some bad in them, the bad guys have some good in them. There is absolutely nobody that stands out as "absolute good" or "absolute evil".

Well, other than maybe the Snakeoil Salesman. For what he did to that farmer's chickens, he can go to hell.

 

[Zavulon]

It all depends on how it is made a part of the story.

I can go through a huge number of stories in the past that can be like that, starting with "Soylent Green" all the way back in 1972. Where the love interest of the very Macho lead actor was black. And for the most part, even 5 decades ago nobody gave a damn (and the few that did care did not matter).

The big problem with "woke" is how such things are integrated into the story. Could the story have turned into a "woke-fest"? Sure, it could have done that easily. But it never did, because the writers and showrunners had far more respect for the source material and actually had a good story to tell without injecting that into the story.

One of the things I appreciated is that each of the characters was flawed. Each in their own way, and none of those flaws had anything to do with their gender or ethnicity. Lucy was not absolutely awesome just because she was female. Maximus was not absolutely amazing just because he was black. Each was a rather well fleshed out character in the modern era, with good and bad points in their characters.

And one of the first things that shows that was Lucy and Monty. She does not question the multiple things he does that is "wrong", until after they had gotten it on until she hears gunfire in the distance. And in their fight, it is brutal and she not only barely knocks him out she is badly wounded in the process. If the show had gone "woke", she would have been a Sherlock Holmes and been the first one to realize that he was a raider, and taken him out within seconds with no injury to herself. Then gone on to warn everybody else before they could have killed anybody.

With Maximum, one of the first things we see of the BoS Aspirants is that they often attack each other, and there is no one thing that causes it. If say they seemed to specifically target minorities then he could be made to be the best ever because he overcame that, and would then do all he could to help rise others out of similar situations. But we see others they attack, and there never seems to be anything in particular that makes them stand out from the others.

One of the things that always stood out in the series is that every group is flawed. There is no "black and white", everybody is some shade of grey. And they kept that very much in mind when creating the characters, and every single one of them reflects that. The good guys have some bad in them, the bad guys have some good in them. There is absolutely nobody that stands out as "absolute good" or "absolute evil".

Well, other than maybe the Snakeoil Salesman. For what he did to that farmer's chickens, he can go to hell.

Looks like there are two different questions:
1) Do you hate woke ideology itself (including good, natural woke-adversing works)?
2) Do you hate when the woke ideology spoils otherway good work?

It seems to me that both wokeness and unwokeness are two sides of the same medal, or, may be even two extremes of the same curve in the American discuss and it can't be removed from an American book or movie.

If you want to watch something completely different - may be, you should watch Russian or Chinese movies.
May be, something like "The Blackout" (2020) movie. It contains pretty different ideology messages.




And last - don't you think, that the Snakeoil Salesman is just another little step in the expanding of the woke ideology to other sexual minorities, like NPZR-community.

 

[Mushroom]

Do you hate woke ideology itself (including good, natural woke-adversing works)?

I dislike when it is shoehorned into a story, so that itself becomes the "plot" and not the story itself.

And that is really the difference in the modern era, compared to the past era. And we have had female superheroes for as long as we have had superheroes, the third TV superhero series in the US was Wonder Woman after all. Hell, in the past we have even had a "Black Iron Man". And here is the thing, nobody gave a damn! Hell, they are gearing up to a remake of "Secret Wars". However, I remember the original comic series in 1984, and they even commented on that in the comic itself.

For most of us in 1984 that read that, Reed Richard's response was pretty much like most of us readers.

"I'm curious... were you surprised there was a Black Man under the metal?"
"Hmm... No, I never gave it a thought! I knew there was a MAN under there..."

And case in point, I am actually an "amateur author", and have written a series of superhero stories that many might consider "Woke". A bad-ass black guy that is impervious to damage and loves to jump off of three floor buildings and land on criminals. But in reality they are a shape shifter, and in their original form are a slacker Jewish girl. Another is a statuesque Chinese girl that goes into battle with an actual dire wolf, but she also changes form, and in real life is petite and blind, the dire wolf is her German Shepherd guide dog. With their "Sensei" being a former Special Forces soldier who was badly injured in a war, and tries to teach others how to defend themselves and attempts to avoid violence whenever possible (and when forced into it uses as little as possible).

Each and every one in many ways a classic "comic book trope", but I turned them on their heads slightly. But none of those being used in an exploitive manner. Hell, in the first draft of my original story in that series, I did not even reveal that the "main hero" was somebody who changed gender and races for a couple of chapters. But a lot of people were upset because the character would go through their memories and they included them "parking" with a guy, and that caused a lot of confusion if I had made the hero gay (and a crossdresser). So in later editing I made it clear earlier that they changed bodies, and those were the memories of the female identity.

We have even had some fun "race or gender swaps", in media and nobody gave a damn. In Armor (1984 novel), it featured a soldier in an exoskeleton suit, and like in the game Halo we never saw him outside of his suit. Until the end, when it turns out he was black. And none of the fans of the novel cared. In Starship Troopers (1959 novel), it still passes most readers today that the main character was from the Philippines. And nobody gave a damn in Metroid when it turned out the badass in an armored suit you played for the entire game was really a chick.

However, in the last decade or so this has shifted. I could not care less what the race, gender, or even sexual preference of a character is. What I do not want is it being shoved in my face, them being perfect in damned near everything, and have it actually work as part of the plot. Most times now it is gratuitous and damned near exploitive, and that is what I object to. The story and plot have taken a back-seat to either making the character "practically perfect in every way", or constantly going out of their way to rub such facts into the faces of everybody.

And it is not even "swapping", so long as the story and character are good. Case in point, I loved "The Equalizer" in the 1980s, with Edward Woodward. And thought nothing of the more modern remakes with Denzel Washington. He acts like the Robert McCall of decades past, and does nothing to scream "I am this bad assed because I am black", it is more like the original. "I am bad assed out of a sense of justice, leave it at that".

In the 1980s, you could take two iconic movies with a Marine Drill Instructor and swap the roles, and both would be equally good. Lou Gossett Junior and R. Lee Ermey could be swapped in their most iconic characters, and both An Officer and a Gentleman and Full Metal Jacket would have been incredible movies. Neither of them were great because of their race, but the actors that played them combined to a great script. But in the modern era? Neither one could be made, because the story would be almost completely unrecognizable because the story would take a backseat to trying to force in political crap that was not important to the story in the first place.

 

[Zavulon]

I dislike when it is shoehorned into a story, so that itself becomes the "plot" and not the story itself.

And that is really the difference in the modern era, compared to the past era. And we have had female superheroes for as long as we have had superheroes, the third TV superhero series in the US was Wonder Woman after all. Hell, in the past we have even had a "Black Iron Man". And here is the thing, nobody gave a damn! Hell, they are gearing up to a remake of "Secret Wars". However, I remember the original comic series in 1984, and they even commented on that in the comic itself.

For most of us in 1984 that read that, Reed Richard's response was pretty much like most of us readers.

"I'm curious... were you surprised there was a Black Man under the metal?"
"Hmm... No, I never gave it a thought! I knew there was a MAN under there..."

And case in point, I am actually an "amateur author", and have written a series of superhero stories that many might consider "Woke". A bad-ass black guy that is impervious to damage and loves to jump off of three floor buildings and land on criminals. But in reality they are a shape shifter, and in their original form are a slacker Jewish girl. Another is a statuesque Chinese girl that goes into battle with an actual dire wolf, but she also changes form, and in real life is petite and blind, the dire wolf is her German Shepherd guide dog. With their "Sensei" being a former Special Forces soldier who was badly injured in a war, and tries to teach others how to defend themselves and attempts to avoid violence whenever possible (and when forced into it uses as little as possible).

Each and every one in many ways a classic "comic book trope", but I turned them on their heads slightly. But none of those being used in an exploitive manner. Hell, in the first draft of my original story in that series, I did not even reveal that the "main hero" was somebody who changed gender and races for a couple of chapters. But a lot of people were upset because the character would go through their memories and they included them "parking" with a guy, and that caused a lot of confusion if I had made the hero gay (and a crossdresser). So in later editing I made it clear earlier that they changed bodies, and those were the memories of the female identity.

We have even had some fun "race or gender swaps", in media and nobody gave a damn. In Armor (1984 novel), it featured a soldier in an exoskeleton suit, and like in the game Halo we never saw him outside of his suit. Until the end, when it turns out he was black. And none of the fans of the novel cared. In Starship Troopers (1959 novel), it still passes most readers today that the main character was from the Philippines. And nobody gave a damn in Metroid when it turned out the badass in an armored suit you played for the entire game was really a chick.

However, in the last decade or so this has shifted. I could not care less what the race, gender, or even sexual preference of a character is. What I do not want is it being shoved in my face, them being perfect in damned near everything, and have it actually work as part of the plot. Most times now it is gratuitous and damned near exploitive, and that is what I object to. The story and plot have taken a back-seat to either making the character "practically perfect in every way", or constantly going out of their way to rub such facts into the faces of everybody.

And it is not even "swapping", so long as the story and character are good. Case in point, I loved "The Equalizer" in the 1980s, with Edward Woodward. And thought nothing of the more modern remakes with Denzel Washington. He acts like the Robert McCall of decades past, and does nothing to scream "I am this bad assed because I am black", it is more like the original. "I am bad assed out of a sense of justice, leave it at that".

In the 1980s, you could take two iconic movies with a Marine Drill Instructor and swap the roles, and both would be equally good. Lou Gossett Junior and R. Lee Ermey could be swapped in their most iconic characters, and both An Officer and a Gentleman and Full Metal Jacket would have been incredible movies. Neither of them were great because of their race, but the actors that played them combined to a great script. But in the modern era? Neither one could be made, because the story would be almost completely unrecognizable because the story would take a backseat to trying to force in political crap that was not important to the story in the first place.

Thank you. I think I got it. There are four possible opportunities:
1) The author doesn't care (or just ignorant) about an existing prejudices among his customers.
2) The author is trying to got an emotional reaction by demonstration of something unusual, but without attempt to teach his consumer.
3) The author is trying to teach his consumers some uncommon among them morality.
4) A political committee of a sort, is directly involved in process of creating, spoiling the final product, and making it less acceptable for the customers.

Did I understand it right?

 

[Montrovant]

It all depends on how it is made a part of the story.

I can go through a huge number of stories in the past that can be like that, starting with "Soylent Green" all the way back in 1972. Where the love interest of the very Macho lead actor was black. And for the most part, even 5 decades ago nobody gave a damn (and the few that did care did not matter).

The big problem with "woke" is how such things are integrated into the story. Could the story have turned into a "woke-fest"? Sure, it could have done that easily. But it never did, because the writers and showrunners had far more respect for the source material and actually had a good story to tell without injecting that into the story.

One of the things I appreciated is that each of the characters was flawed. Each in their own way, and none of those flaws had anything to do with their gender or ethnicity. Lucy was not absolutely awesome just because she was female. Maximus was not absolutely amazing just because he was black. Each was a rather well fleshed out character in the modern era, with good and bad points in their characters.

And one of the first things that shows that was Lucy and Monty. She does not question the multiple things he does that is "wrong", until after they had gotten it on until she hears gunfire in the distance. And in their fight, it is brutal and she not only barely knocks him out she is badly wounded in the process. If the show had gone "woke", she would have been a Sherlock Holmes and been the first one to realize that he was a raider, and taken him out within seconds with no injury to herself. Then gone on to warn everybody else before they could have killed anybody.

With Maximum, one of the first things we see of the BoS Aspirants is that they often attack each other, and there is no one thing that causes it. If say they seemed to specifically target minorities then he could be made to be the best ever because he overcame that, and would then do all he could to help rise others out of similar situations. But we see others they attack, and there never seems to be anything in particular that makes them stand out from the others.

One of the things that always stood out in the series is that every group is flawed. There is no "black and white", everybody is some shade of grey. And they kept that very much in mind when creating the characters, and every single one of them reflects that. The good guys have some bad in them, the bad guys have some good in them. There is absolutely nobody that stands out as "absolute good" or "absolute evil".

Well, other than maybe the Snakeoil Salesman. For what he did to that farmer's chickens, he can go to hell.

Unfortunately, what I've seen is that your definition of woke will be different, maybe markedly so, than the next person that brings it up, or the next, or the next. Commercials are woke because there are too many blacks/minorities in them. Comics are woke because they made a female Wolverine. Companies that go woke, go broke! (even if said company was going broke long before whatever 'woke' thing is being discussed happened). The term seems to have too many meanings, rendering it somewhat meaningless.

I do agree, though, that adding 'wokeness' poorly is annoying. The female characters getting together in Avengers: Endgame is a good example IMO; there was no build-up to it happening, no true connection between all of the characters outside of their genders, no particular reason we should suddenly see such a clearly-inserted (to my eyes) girl power moment. It felt very forced. But that sort of things happens with all sorts of things, and I tend to blame it more on poor writing than wokeness.

I appreciate your response.

 

[Mushroom]

Thank you. I think I got it. There are four possible opportunities:
1) The author doesn't care (or just ignorant) about an existing prejudices among his customers.
2) The author is trying to got an emotional reaction by demonstration of something unusual, but without attempt to teach his consumer.
3) The author is trying to teach his consumers some uncommon among them morality.
4) A political committee of a sort, is directly involved in process of creating, spoiling the final product, and making it less acceptable for the customers.

Did I understand it right?

It all depends on what you want. Are you making content for as broad of a base as possible, or are you only intending to cater to a small group that think as you do?

Entertainment should be exactly that in most cases, entertainment. Most people do not go to see movies or watch TV shows for political agendas. They want some entertainment to escape for a little while. And putting in agendas ultimately is stupid, as you are guaranteeing that you will likely be cutting your actual viewership in half right off the bat. And I do not care what the agenda is, forcing them into entertainment is almost guaranteed to alienate almost half your potential audience.

Now if somebody wants to invest the money to make something like that, I say go ahead. Feel absolutely free to create your own characters and make your own story, and push for any kind of political or social issues you want. But do not do it with pre-established characters, and do not pretend it is "mainstream" when it is in reality trying to push a personal agenda.

Want to make a movie about two gay superheroes that live in a mansion, be my guest. But don't do that with Batman.

And get "prejudices" out of the discussion, it really does not belong. I am very much a "Moderate", as one friend called me a "Militant Moderate". I would likely not go to see any movie or read a book if it had an agenda in it, either Right Wing or Left Wing. I want to escape for a bit or be entertained. I have absolutely no interest in being bombarded by the viewpoints of the creators. And quite often, people are wrong about their own prejudices when considering such works.

Case in point, an amazing number of people consider "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein to be a novel about Fascism. However, it is not and the reality is far from the truth. Which I think is one reason of many that most readers completely miss that the main character is not a "White Anglo" as was seen in the movie, but a Filipino. And like the novel "Armor", I thought it was very clever to never actually include the race of the main character until the very end. Because the first time you read it, doing that is rather shocking and makes you reconsider the book all over again.

But there really should not be any "teaching" in popular media, that is just another way to phrase "push an agenda". The purpose of entertainment is to entertain, not push agendas. And I think that is why more and more they are failing, because more and more they are overtly pushing agendas.

In general, 40% of the population is Liberal, 40% is Conservative, and 20% is somewhere in the middle. Push an agenda, and you are almost guaranteed to lose a significant number of consumers of your entertainment product. Now, are you in a business to make money by making entertaining content, or to push an agenda? If the former, you should try to be as "middle of the road" as possible. If you are in the latter, then just make that clear and forget about half of your potential market watching your content.

Myself, in my works I tend to very much walk a "middle ground", and push for neither Right or Left wing agendas. In fact, quite often my characters are the same as me, and will comment on good and bad things on both sides of the argument. Like myself, for example where I like a great many things of the Clean Water Act, I think overzealous enforcement is destroying the good it can do.

If somebody wants to make a political piece, that is fine with me. Just do not do it in the guise of being mainstream. There is a reason the only "Marvel" movies I have seen in the last several years is the three Spiderman movies (No Way Home, Spiderverse 1 & 2) and Guardians of the Galaxy. And I plan on watching the new Deadpool when it comes out. Because unlike the House of Mouse, Sony has been smart to leave the politics out of the movie and concentrate on simply telling a good story. And Fox was the same way with their Marvel movies. And as D got more political, their movies suffered.

Not all that long ago, when people were screaming "Racism" over the failure of Little Mermaid, I actually made a prediction. It was not racism that caused the movie to fail, it was simply boredom of yet another remake of a fairly recent movie that did not need to be made in the first place. And that it would be supplanted as number 1 by yet another movie with a black protagonist and nobody would give a damn. And sure enough, Little Mermaid fell to number 2 and ultimately lost money, while "Into the Spider-Verse" was a success and made over $200 million. Ultimately, one was yet another of the endless remakes that the audience no longer wants to see, the other was a fresh and original story.

And I bet if The Little Mermaid did not do a race swap, it still would have underperformed or bombed. Audiences are simply sick and tired of Disney pulling out yet another of their old movies and making it live action. They have done it 22 times now, and the sharp downward spiral of money brought in shows that the audiences are simply tired of them. With many of the most recent being dumped straight to TV because they knew they would fail in the theaters. Yet, there are 8 more in the works. And it does not take much to predict most of those will underperform or bomb as well.

I wonder how long until they announce a live action Frozen. Or a live action Toy Story.

 

[Mushroom]

Comics are woke because they made a female Wolverine.

Unquestionably, you can have that. However, what was the intent of it when it was made that matters?

Myself, I largely laughed at the uproar over the last James Bond movie because they featured a female 007. However, it was also done after James Bond retired, so it was not a "Female James Bond". 007 is just their identity code and not the actual individual. They did not make "James Bond female", so who held the gun after he retired did not matter. In fact, we have actually seen female "00 agents" in prior movies, dating all the way to 003 in Thunderball (1965).

Now remember, I have likely been reading comics far longer than most have been alive. We had a "Black Ironman" back in the 1980s, and nobody cared. Nobody gave a damn when Lady Deadpool was introduced, and I have heard of nobody being upset by the "Female Wolverine" X-23. However, introducing another "Female Wolverine" does not have to supplant the Logan Wolverine character. Introduce them from an alternate universe, nobody will care. Hell, nobody really gave a damn about "Lady Loki", and she was first introduced back in 2008. If the back story for "Female Wolverine" is that Logan has died and another with similar powers assumes the mantle, nobody will care.

Completely replace them with no explanation and try to say they have always been Wolverine, and a lot of people will care. Just as introducing a "Batwoman" or "Supergirl" does not have to completely replace the male counterpart.

Want an idea of how such things can be done right? Go and watch the TV series "Sliders". The entire premise was about alternate universes, and was really the first popular media to explore such a concept. And they were always running across alternate versions of themselves and famous people. But one thing that was always clear is that these alternate versions were not them. And ultimately, it is when they completely change or replace an iconic character that you are going to get problems.

Once again, nobody gives a damn that the latest smash Spider-Man movie featured a Black-Puerto Rican Spider-Man. It was made clear at the start that Miles Morales is indeed Spider-Man, but he is not Peter Parker. It is just freaking lazy to do such swaps without an actual reason. Hell, one of my favorite "Spider-Man" comics for decades replaces Peter Parker with a pig.

And I also laugh, because Miles Morales in 2011 is not even the first Latino Spider-Man. That actually dates all the way back to Miguel O'Hara in 1992. And nobody gave a damn back then either that the newest Spider Man was Irish-Puerto Rican.

As I have already stated, it is less that it is done but the lazy way it is normally done that bothers people. In fact, if in Deadpool 3 we will meet many Wolverine variants. And if one of them is female, I bet nobody will care. Hell, it is already strongly believed that one of the Wolverine variants we will meet is Patch, who will be played by a wizard.

 

[Zavulon]

So, here is a contradiction:
1) Ordinary folks just want to be entertained.
2) Politicians want to lecture ordinary folks.
3) Creators want to earn money from the both sides.

You say, that your solution is just make the process comfortable for all sides. "You can f#ck my brain, just lube it up enough".

Did I get it right?

 

[Failzero]

The Pro Minority Zeitgeist has been amping up for last 40 years .

 

[Zavulon]

The Pro Minority Zeitgeist has been amping up for last 40 years .

Actually, Lenin's article "The critical notes about the national question" was published back in 1913. And I'm pretty sure he wasn't first.