MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Hollywood has a cancer. That cancer is W...

Hollywood has a cancer. That cancer is WOKE.


I’m starting to see posts from wokists bitching about people who call out woke, or people who quite reasonably ask how woke a film is.

Let’s get something clear. Wokeness is a sick, racist, sexist ideology that has infected numerous institutions in the West and is destroying Western Civilisation, replacing actual justice with ‘social justice’.

It has its creepy tentacles all over and inside Hollywood, and has effectively killed the industry, with precious few films actually able to escape the obnoxious stench of woke.

I suggest the woke bitches festering around here and calling for censorship fuck off to Reddit, where they’ll find plenty of their own kind, and all the fun-policing and censorship they could ever hope for.

reply

I know nothing of this "woke" term. Please list the top ten movies of the last two years that fit your definition of the word and the top ten movies that do the opposite.

That would clear up a lot of your rhetoric, if you listed specific movies. So... which movies in particular are you talking about?

reply

What planet have you live on for the last 5 years? ))

Every fifth movie is now basically woke to some degree. Some of slightly woke, some are crazy woke.

"Crazy woke" are Terminator Dark Fate. Charlies Angels (Kristen Stewart one). The 355. Ghosbusters 2016. The Matrix Resurrections. Etc.

TV shows are: Charmed reboot. Batwoman. Peacemaker. Y The Last man.

reply

Thanks for naming some titles. Most people who post here regularly know I don't get around to seeing a whole lot of media, so it helps to name some specific examples.

As far as I can tell, most of those titles are action/sci-fi/fantasy genre pieces marketed toward a wide general audience. Is that what the term "woke" means? If so, it's curious how so many people are projecting outrage towards harmless escapism.

Also, can you name some movies/series that are "non-woke" for comparison? This would help, since there does not seem to be a consistent concrete baseline definition for the term.

Thanks for your time and patience in clarifying these matters.

reply

You handle this very well.

reply

Its looks like you dont understand what Woke is. I’l try to explain a little bit.

"Terminator" 2 has a strong female character. Sarah Connor. She was cool, masculine, serious, well acted. You looked at her and you believed that she can kick arse and do all action stuff. She was believable. And everyone loved her.

"Terminator: Woke Fate" had a midget small petite woman. Played by charisma vacuum actress. Who cant kick a butterfly. Yet movie presented her to us as Some Chosen John Connor like character. The one that will save the future because she is so strong and charismatic that people in future will follow her and she will kick robots arse. They even showed that future scene. She was looking ridiculously bad. No one at all would follow her and she cant kick arse of 10 years old child. But movie established her as such for no reason. That is woke. When they introduce Strong Female Character that doesnt look like one and acts like one. Thats why people laugh at it and such movies flop.

reply

Charlies Angels (Drew Barrymore one) was a fun action comedy that didnt take itself seriously. Everyone were on the joke- actors, writers, director. Those women kicking those men was not believable but it was for comedy and for fun movie.

Charlies Angels (Kristen Stewart one) was completely serious about itself. They took petite Kristen Stewart and make her kick around men twice bigger then her. They hired stuntmen and told them to fall when she pretend to kick them. And they did. And they wanted public to believe that Kirsten Stewart looking like person can actually hit men twice bigger and they all will fall. They wont. In no way in real world that can happen. But in Woke world it does. And they keep inserting those Mary Sue like Strong Female Characters in various movies and tv shows. And public rejects it because it looks stupid and silly. And they flop.

That what Woke is. Not to mention that they deliberately make poc men good and white men are always villains now. Just because this is woke ideology: "Whites are bad, poc are innocent puppies". That is simply not true considering statistics where 13% of population commints 50% of all crimes. But wokes appointed themselves as Savior of Black People or something. And so they keep portraying white men as Vilains and bad people, while portraing almost every poc as good ones.

Thats why people now ask: "How woke movie is" before watching and giving money to woke directors and studios. People dont support woke racist ideology. Its just that wokies are too loud and have Hollywood and corporations on payrole. But normal people dont support it and that why woke movies and tv show usually flop.

reply

What planet have you live on for the last 5 years? ))

Every fifth movie is now basically woke to some degree. Some of slightly woke, some are crazy woke.

"Crazy woke" are Terminator Dark Fate. Charlies Angels (Kristen Stewart one). The 355. Ghosbusters 2016. The Matrix Resurrections. Etc.


5 titles from the over 5000 films to come out of America and Canada in the past six years is “every fifth movie”?

Great maths, mongo LOL

reply

LOL dude. I will not sit now for hours and examine every freaking movie for woke-meter just to prove something to anonymous person on the internet ))) There are crazy, aggressive woke movies. That are in your face woke. And some are slightly woke.

If you dont understand what woke is, if you are one of those delusional lefties - you wont see it. No matter how mach it will be explained to you. You simply wont get it.

reply

If you dont understand what woke is, if you are one of those delusional lefties - you wont see it.

Just don't look up.

reply

Excuse me, but would you happen to have any pitch forks or torches to go with this?

reply

Sorry can’t do. The Woke ones bought all that stuff out as well as balaclavas.

reply

😁

reply

Oh God just shut up and go away you rancid hemorrhoid.

reply

Haha very funny! That's telling him.
I haven't laughed that hard in a while!!

reply

It’s very typical of wokists to try and silence and banish anyone who calls out their sick ideology and the ruin its causing ☝🏻

reply

Hollywood is guilty of a few things:

Pedophilia
Shit movies
Elitism
Mötley Crüe

Hollywood needs to answer for all of these.

reply

WTF is wrong with Motley Crue! Ya done crossed the line now.

reply

Everything. I'll fight anyone on this.

reply

I just finished reading this book: Nöthin' But a Good Time: The Uncensored History of the '80s Hard Rock Explosion.

The Crüe was guilty of many things. Perhaps the greatest was Crimes Against Fashion.

reply

I'll take crappy fashion over crappy music.

reply

Motley Crue is the most egregious of them!

reply

I agree. Execution is the only answer.

reply

that and Winger...Winger should hang for their crimes.

reply

I mocked Winger too. But then I saw them open up for the Scorpions. They actually rocked. Bunch of studio musicians banded together (some didn't even meet until after the record had a #1 hit) and used to deliver the latest pop/metal written by someone else. But in concert? God damn they were good. They played some covers that were much heavier than their fanbase would approve of.

reply

If you had to choose, like the people of Jerusalem had to choose between Jesus and Barabbas:

Mötley Crüe or Kiss?

reply

Depends on the weight of the symbolism. Both bands are full of foul human beings but both have a basket of good tunes. If I say "give us Motley Crue!" am I wanting KISS to take the nails or am I saying that KISS is some messiah level thing?

I think based solely on Crue's first album, they should live. Let KISS pay for their innumerable crimes, seen and especially unseen. Let Crue face the cross next season against Aerosmith.

reply

KISS is worse. People actually call them legendary. No one says that about Mötley Crüe. KISS needs to be brought down.

reply

Okay so if KISS and Motley Crue are crap, who did you actually like from that era?

reply

Very little from the 80s. The 70s are my favourite music decade. Here are a few that I like. All of these released an album no earlier than 1970:

Black Sabbath
Judas Priest
The Clash
Buzzcocks
Motorhead
Deep Purple
Faces
Hawkwind
UFO
Wire
Dr. Feelgood
Pagan Altar
Rush
Joy Division
Slade

reply

Judas Priest is the only one I'd pick out of that group. Though I don't listen to a whole lot from the `80's either. Most of what I listen to is from the last 20yrs or so.

I loved KISS back in the `80's. Motley Crue had some really good stuff as well, maybe the first four albums but later on went to crap, too commercial.

reply

Although I am not a rabid as you about the subject, I agree that "groupthink" is a problem in Hollywood.

Case in point :

A Charlie's Angels (19) movie was made without any sex appeal.

Only groupthink could let this happen. I am sure that privately, wise studio executives knew that it would be a flop, but were to afraid to speak up and be attack by the PC mob, possibly losing their job.


So it did flop. It isn't the only case where the male view point is not considered much at all in movies, and the female point of view is exalted and treated as sacrosanct.

I do not wish to imply that the female point of view is meaningless, but we have lost all equilibrium between the sexes.

reply

Women hate woke too. It’s only the woke cultists, who are a tiny but extremely noisy, screeching minority that actually want woke content - and even then, they don’t actually like the content itself, they just like that it takes a dump on what came before.

reply

Yes, thanks for that clarification on my point. It is fair to say that most women are not radical feminist and would like a more moderate tone.

But the radical left makes the most noise in Hollywood and has completely cowed the industry. The male point of view in scripts/dialogue is getting no play today.

Often I revisit older movies and am really amazed at how different the writing is today compared to then. The best scripts can give both sexes points of view.

reply

Let’s get something clear. Wokeness is a sick, racist, sexist ideology that has ...
blaha blah blah
Translation:
"I hate seeing darkies on my screen and also women if they aint got their tits out.
Why cant it be like the old days when these types knew their place in the pecking order "

reply

i don't think this is correct at all.

in fact, i think it's a strawman and a smearing of a legitimate issue.

reply

Exactly.

reply

Bingo.

This is their way of avoiding actually having to debate the merits of a legitimate issue. They just attempt to dismiss you by implying that you are racist, sexist, etc.

It's old, overplayed and transparent.

reply

100% agreed.
it's a way to shut down a debate before it even starts.
it's the ugliest aspect of woke culture - the automatic smearing of anyone who disagrees with you as a racist.

that's one of the ugliest things you can say about a person, & it gets thrown out in the most casual way.

reply

The worst part of this is that there is real racism out there and now it’s impossible to call it out because wokists have denuded the term of any meaning.

If you hear that someone is ‘racist’ now you naturally assume they’re not racist, they’ve just gone and said something that has challenged Left wing ideology.

reply

Wrong! This is why we can't engage with you people. Try again.

reply

You speak like woke lefty.

reply

Pathetic straw man.

Of course, this straw tactic was to be expected from you lot and I dealt with one of your fellow cultists here who was guilty of the same dirty trick: https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/61ee1ff34293dd38d900c3b1/Hollywood-has-a-cancer-That-cancer-is-WOKE?reply=61ef34e4bcee4f3e85d1ac93

reply

Serious question for anyone to answer: what exactly is woke? What are the specific criteria of a movie being woke? People complain about it, but no one ever gives a clear definition or explains why it is wrong or bad.

reply

well its a sort of issue of equality , or even SJW ing .
It applies in a lot of areas, but lets take "racial diversity in movies" as an example.

It was decided as some point that colored people are people too and are allowed equal access to being on screen.
So this has been happening.

Some people who would prefer this didnt happen spotted the phenomenon and labelled it "woke"

The big question is :
Are the colored people receiving some sort of "positive discrimination" ?
The extremely vocal anti woke warriors on this site will have you believe this is the case and absolutely mad as hell about it , they feel all insecure and persecuted .

Personally I'm not bothered if there are a disproportionate number of colored faces in the movies any more than I'm bothered about the proportion of silver cars on the road compared to blue ones .

reply

And this is how the devil attempts to convince you that he does not exist.

reply

Woke is political correctness with teeth. The next step is thought policing and authoritarianism.

reply

What exactly, specifically is "political correctness with teeth" and how does it apply to movies? Give specific examples.

reply

Woke is when something is purposely going out of its way to be progressive to the detriment of something, in this case, a film.

For example: let's just say there is a film with four friends. One is black, one is Asian, one is trans and one is white, it's clear that they're going out of their way to make something diverse. Pretty much it's tokenism so that they can come off as doing something good.

reply

Why is it detrimental to be progressive? Let's say the film with four friends (black, asian, trans, white) is a really funny comedy with good performances and lots of laughs. Why does it matter that the friends are not all white? A good movie is a good movie.

reply

I'm not saying they have to be all white. I wrote 1 Asian, 1 black and 1 was trans. At some point you have to consider that they're almost trying to fill out a checklist to come off as progressive.

Why is it detrimental to be progressive?

The problem is that they're going out of their way to do it. For example, Kowalski earlier this week joked that he bought movies with black people in them so he can't be racist. In reality, there are people who purposely go out if their way to do that because they don't want to come off as racist. They should have been watching films with black people in it organically, not go out if their way to prove something about themselves.

reply

I'm still not seeing the problem here. It's a well made film,why does it matter if there is an Asian and a trans person in it? Asians exist in real life. Trans people exist in real life. Black people exist in real life. If you object to trans, black or Asian characters in films, then I have to wonder why.

reply

"If you object to trans, black or Asian characters in films, then I have to wonder why."

Strawman.

reply

No, it is not a strawman. There is no valid reason to object to trans, black, or Asian characters in films. No one has been able to make a coherent, intelligent argument as to why diversity in films is bad. All I see is people saying "black/trans/gay/female characters bad because I don't like it!"

reply

It's 100% a strawman, because you're no fool and you know very well people don't object to that, but the intention and the message.

reply

What message?

*NAME A REAL, ACTUAL FILM AND THE MESSAGE IN THAT SPECIFIC FILM THAT YOU OBJECT TO.

reply

Not if you're going to shout at me.

reply

pretty please?

reply

Would you want to be hired simply for being trans so that someone can look that they're being inclusive? It's like winning an award and shouting "free Tibet!" when you know that no one will boo but you don't even really care about Tibet.

Look at the film "The Craft: Legacy". The director is always on social media trying to be woke. In the film, the 4 leads are a two white women, a Hispanic woman who is also trans, a black woman. She went out of her way in the film to make it known that they were trans and black.

reply

The Craft Legacy was a mediocre film, but it would not have been any better if the leads were all white, cisgender actors.

reply

"Seinfeld" also wouldn't be a better show if it was more diverse.

I'll give you a real life example in the film industry where being woke backfired. I'll bold all the important words.

Cheryl Boone Isaacs is a black woman who is President of the AMPAS. In other words: she is in charge of the Oscars. She was President the year #OscarsSoWhite became popular. Because of the backlash of all the nominees being white, she vowed to make the nominees more diverse.

The following year, a record number of black people were nominated with 5 total nominations. What's the problem, you ask? The only other racial minority who was nominated that year was Dev Patel. Even better, the following year, there were 4 black nominees and 0 from any other racial minority.

Cheryl Boone Isaacs, a black woman, vowed to make the Oscars more diverse, and all she did was make it more diverse for black people for the following two years. She didn't care about the Oscars being diverse. She was just upset that people who shared her skin colour weren't being nominated and used #OscarsSoWhite as her reason for doing so. I mean the fact that literally the year after the backlash they broke a record for black nominees tells us how suspicious it is.

reply

I never thought that Seinfeld would be a better show if it was more diverse. It was a good show the way it was. The race of the actors shouldn't be a factor in nominating or not nominating them. The most deserving performances should get nominated, regardless of race.

reply

Nothing would make a show/movie better if it was more diverse or less diverse. Although it wouldn't make sense if you're doing a movie that takes place in Japan and half the cast is black.

Of course people should be nominated on merit. That's what Cheryl Boone Isaacs was saying, but she became the exact thing that she was criticizing.

reply

Seems he's missing the point again...

reply

Hey joes 👋 this comment

“Would you want to be hired simply for being trans so that someone can look that they're being inclusive?”

brings to mind the career of Laverne Cox to me. She is a great actor who had her breakthrough role in Orange is the New Black, where she played a trans character and her storyline was heavily centred on being trans. It was very well received and she is regarded one of the major factors in the show’s success. Since then she’s moved on to film roles, many of which she plays a supporting character and there is no mention of her being trans (Promising Young Woman and Jolt come to
Mind as the most recent high profile films she’s appeared in). She’s great in both these films and a worthy addition to both casts, however many people here would label it as “woke” that she’s hired at all, simply because she’s a trans woman.

My question is doesn’t she have the right to be hired for these parts based on the fact she’s a talented actor, without being criticised as being part of a left wing agenda? Like many other actors before her who have moved from TV to film, shouldn’t she have the opportunity to further her career because she’s bloody good, and not be called woke without giving her a chance? I think some people are so opposed to the idea of trans people that the simple fact that they are hired at all is enough to dismiss them completely.

reply

Of course there are people going to be opposed to Laverne Cox being in films. I personally don't believe that trans women are real women, but if I was making a film, I surely wouldn't turn them down for a role. That's just flat-out discrimination.

As for Orange is the New Black, it would make sense to have a diverse cast because there are all kinds of people in jail. But the example that I gave Allaby with "The Craft: Legacy", it's pretty obvious they only cast a trans actor to be trans. They even bring it up that she's trans even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the story.

reply

Sweet, thanks for that honest and straightforward reply mate, much appreciated.

reply

My son had a much more diverse set of friends than I did. I think movies reflect that to some extent.

reply

Of course he does, mass immigration has ensured that.

But that’s not the point, wokism in Hollywood is about nerfing, killing off or replacing straight white male heroes with new, diverse counterparts. It’s an attack on culture masquerading as a defence of minorities.

Nobody has a problem with new content having more diversity (although the amount of diversity should reflect the % of it in the population)

reply

it's exploitation... very regressive, and when it comes to the main thing, the quality, well, it sucks.

I'm a progressive, but I don't even see liberals in the US anymore. Some might call themselves this, but you can't be a liberal and support censorship, but of course, that's more of an in-group vs. out-group. I remember when the GOP would say, "Love it or leave it" or "Don't like it? Start your own corporation"

There's been no positives from "wokism"... Just symbolic lip-service to avoid actual justice (or any other solutions).

Many repeat the mantra "equality" because they know you can't legislate kindness and understanding, and is a way to look great (all to make money) without doing a fucking thing.

All Bezos (or anyone else) has to do now is throw a silly hash-tag, and suddenly, the exploitation disappears, and everyone then cheers for the guy, and go out of their way to buy shit sold by him.

reply

I mean, wokism is just another word for tokenism. No one wants to be a token of anything.

reply

be progressive to the detriment of something

"For example: let's just say there is a film with four friends. One is black, one is Asian, one is trans and one is white, it's clear that they're going out of their way to make something diverse. Pretty much it's tokenism so that they can come off as doing something good"

and what , in your example was detrimented?
was the story impacted?
were the special fx reduced?
was the pacing out ?
the costumes?

you havent explained why your example of 4 diverse friends is
" to the detriment of something"

reply

Do you want to be hired simply for fitting into a demographic for the sole purpose of making something diverse? I wouldn't want to.

reply

we all do that , even your male white blue eyed heroes
they arnt going to get any roles as "first lady " , or lassie .
and the roles the white guys do get arnt "solely because they are white" is it ?

reply

Why would a male get a role as a female? Or even as a dog?

reply

You really don't know when a movie is being "progressive" just for the sake of being progressive? Usually they point this out when promoting the movie.

reply

What's wrong with being progressive? Isn't progress a good thing? Can you think of real,actual, specific examples of films that were progressive and it was somehow a bad thing?

reply

Allaby, I don't believe you are really that dense. Making a character purposely female, black, gay, transgender, etc. just to be "progressive" is not truly being progressive, it's just trying to preach a certain agenda, especially if it's accompanied by political commentary, and is definitely dangerous if it vilifies certain people.

reply

I completely disagree with this type of thinking. Having a female character or a gay character or a black character isn't preaching an agenda. There is nothing wrong with female, gay or black characters in films.

reply

"Having a female character or a gay character or a black character isn't preaching an agenda."

You're acting dense on purpose, because nobody even said that. If you would just admit that you support movies spreading an extreme left ideology, then we at least know where you stand. Now you're just being insincere.

reply

You said that. It has nothing to do with left ideology. I support films with diversity because we live in a diverse world with a wide variety of people in it. If you can't support diversity in films, then maybe you have a problem.

reply

"You said that."

I absolutely did not. No need to lie to make your point.

"If you can't support diversity in films, then maybe you have a problem."

Stop being insincere and using strawmen. I support a realistic and natural representation in movies and not the enforcement of any kind of ideology or agenda, especially at the expense of certain people.

reply

You absolutely did say that. Your exact quote was :

"Making a character purposely female, black, gay, transgender, etc. just to be "progressive" is not truly being progressive, it's just trying to preach a certain agenda, especially if it's accompanied by political commentary and is definitely dangerous if it vilifies certain people."

I'm not being insincere. You clearly have a problem with diversity in films and don't want to admit to your own bigotry. There is no point trying to reason with you or others like you as you are blind to your own prejudices.

reply

Stop lying, I said:

"Making a character purposely female, black, gay, transgender, etc. just to be "progressive" is not truly being progressive, it's just trying to preach a certain agenda, especially if it's accompanied by political commentary and is definitely dangerous if it vilifies certain people.

You are really two-faced, you know. If anyone is prejudiced or bigoted it's you against people who don't share your views. You always go off on people who complain about a movie being woke, as if it could never be a legitimate criticism. You clearly have issues taking it so personally every...single...time.

reply

If it is two faced to be opposed to racism, then fine, call me whatever you want. If you think this is going off, then you need to toughen up. Most people do find racism objectionable. It has nothing to do with taking it personally.

reply

You're fighting windmills in your mind. Nothing I said was racist in any way. If you think it was, then maybe you're just a melting little snowflake who needs to go look for a safe space in some freezer as quickly as possible. Honestly, Allaby, you're barking up the wrong tree here.

reply

it's exploitation... very regressive, and when it comes to the main thing, the quality, well, it sucks.

I'm a progressive, but I don't even see liberals in the US anymore. Some might call themselves this, but you can't be a liberal and support censorship, but of course, that's more of an in-group vs. out-group. I remember when the GOP would say, "Love it or leave it" or "Don't like it? Start your own corporation"

reply

They don't care about quality anymore. Just put the label "progressive" or "diverse" on it, and it draws in the investors.

reply

Does it draw them in or just not scare existing investors away?

The bizarre thing is that ‘go woke go broke’ is real and yet Hollywood doesn’t appear to be putting the brakes on 🤷🏻‍♂️

reply

Woke is the latest version of Marxism which takes the form of radical identity politics - the base assumption is that a person is defined not by the content of their character (as MLK rightly stated they should be) but by their race/gender/LGBTQIetcetc identification.

Whereas Communism stoked grievance in the proletariat hoping that they would destroy and pilfer the property of the bourgeoise, wokism stokes grievance in minorities by telling them that they’re oppressed by white people, especially males, with the ultimate goal of tearing down Western Civilisation and putting the peddlers of woke ideology into power.

In Hollywood, this takes the form of destroying heroic figures who are important to our culture, and nerfing and humiliating them, killing them off, or replacing them with new ‘diverse’ counterparts. Resistance to this attack will be met with false accusations of ‘racist!’, ‘sexist!’, ‘transphobe!’ etc in an attempt to cancel any dissenters.

Woke warriors come in two forms - dumb people who are irreligious and use wokism as a substitute because it gives them an unwarranted feeling of moral superiority and they gain social acceptance from fellow cult members. The second are more aware, evil people who know all this and play the game anyway because they’re sick authoritarian crybullies.

I really hope you’re not the latter.

reply

That's certainly an interesting theory, but I don't think any of that is based in reality. No one is destroying heroic figures. It adds drama and emotion to a film by having the hero sacrifice himself for good or dying tragically in battle. You are seeing what you want to see and letting your imagination run wild. Most "woke warriors" are just normal people who are not threatened by diversity. I like good movies. I don't care if the characters are female, male, black, Asian, white, gay, trans, purple, or unicorns.

reply

Yep, you’re the second type, as I suspected.

You’re denying the existence of the woke rape of Hollywood in the same way that the Nazis denied the holocaust. Why? So that the atrocity can continue.

I notice you also deployed the straw man that woke = the mere presence of diversity. You’ll find a response to that dirty trick here, along with examples of movies ruined by wokism (which you already know about but are pretending not to):

https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/61ee1ff34293dd38d900c3b1/Hollywood-has-a-cancer-That-cancer-is-WOKE?reply=61ef34e4bcee4f3e85d1ac93

reply

You didn't list any movies there. You listed characters. And the films that those characters are in (out of the ones I have seen) were not ruined by wokism. No Time to Die was great, Logan was excellent, Avengers Endgame was fantastic, the Star Wars sequels were good too. Just because a hero dies, doesn't mean the movie is ruined! A hero's death can actually add to the film. And I don't care if the people in commercials are white or black or mixed couples. It doesn't change the quality of the product or make me more or less interested in buying it. And it doesn't matter to me if Snow White is brown, as long as she is a good actor and cute. And it doesn't matter to me if Superman's son is gay. And comparing my views with the Nazis denying the Holocaust is ridiculous and idiotic. There is no atrocity going on. You are reading into every little thing and blowing it way out of portion. You are seeing what you want to see.

reply

You didn't list any movies there. You listed characters.


Idiot. The characters are from particular films 🤦🏻‍♂️


And comparing my views with the Nazis denying the Holocaust is ridiculous and idiotic. There is no atrocity going on. You are reading into every little thing and blowing it way out of portion. You are seeing what you want to see.


Yeah nice try. Your denial of the woke cancer ruining movies is precisely akin to the Nazis denying the holocaust. You’re only doing it so that the atrocity can continue, and you’ve failed spectacularly.

reply

No movie has ever been ruined by "woke cancer." Some of the movies that you are considering woke are genuinely good movies. Some movies considered woke are poorly made, but that has nothing to do with being woke. And again comparing opinions of movies to denying the Holocaust is a bad look for you and incredibly ignorant.

reply

Given that you’re the equivalent of a Nazi denying the holocaust so that it can continue, for you to tell me that I have a ‘bad look’ is an enormous compliment.

It’s heartening to earn the disapproval of evil people.

reply

you just lost the debate.

reply

How do you figure that?

reply

[deleted]

Burp.

reply

off the top of my head answer:

woke = a belief that everything has to be seen through the scope of group identity, that race and gender and sex preferences override all, and that these are the most critical things that inform everyone's life and the things we should care the most about.

& that modern society & the u.s. in particular is an irredeemably evil entity that is cancerous to everyone except white men, who all glide through life taking advantage of their never-ending privilege, and are therefore to always be painted as an enemy, a monster who only can be shown as a contemptuous figure.

& of course capitalism is evil. the prosperity we have is a sham, a lie imposed on us. it only benefits the rich. even though they were poorer and worse off in every way, people in the past, whether it was 100 years ago or 50 years ago or some ill-defined time, were better off. we're all dying because of our abhorrent addiction to capitalism, and that's killing us and killing everything. even though we're all actually much better off and there's never been so many people living better and longer. that's still somehow awful and we need to demolish free markets and free trade.

it is only when you recognize this veil of evil that hangs over all of western society that you are awake & now see the rotten evil at our core.

this is the standard, almost dominant message of all culture and media today.

of course, these people talk more than anything about diversity. this is critical, because when you push back against this messaging, they'll just say 'you're racist. you hate the gays. you just hate and want there to be only white men.'

but they are the anti-diversity people. because while they do everything they can to make sure every color and sexual preference is in every story, they will not tolerate diversity of thought. you cannot have anyone making the case for western culture. you cannot have anyone making the case for the greatness of free markets and free trade. you cannot have anyone talking about evolutionary psychology and the biological roots of gender norms or why there are racial disparities. diversity of thought can't be allowed.

only the kinds of diversity approved by the woke are allowed. skin tones. lesbians. rejection of male heterosexuality. that is the diversity to be applauded.

but you can have no variation of thought. wrong-think has to be abolished.

that is woke-ism to me.

reply

There's been no positives from "wokism"... Just symbolic lip-service to avoid actual justice (or any other solutions).

Many repeat the mantra "equality" because they know you can't legislate kindness and understanding, and is a way to look great (all to make money) without doing a fucking thing.

All Bezos (or anyone else) has to do now is throw a silly hash-tag, and suddenly, the exploitation disappears, and everyone then cheers for the guy, and go out of their way to buy shit sold by him.

reply

To the extent greater inclusiveness is both considered 'woke' and in fact promotes greater inclusiveness, that is a positive.

TBH, I find the steady drumbeat of non-conventional characters a bit much, but that isn't to say it isn't an improvement over their virtual invisibility a few decades ago.

So now we are in the over-kill phase. Just like we are in the minorities are kinder & wiser than white people, particularly white men, phase.

Its our turn in the box :) It seems to be an inescapable rule that someone must always be in the box.

reply

The whole identity thing is a lie... It's a few people at the top who make the rules for everyone.

Personally, I want what I do as my identity. Maybe my tastes in movies, and other art. But skin pigment, or who I find attractive -- too trivial. But these corporate approvals speak for me without my or the permission of 99%.

I never even hear the word "class" anymore.. I'm guessing it's more prevalent in the UK, though.

I hate fascism, but when it comes to art, I believe the creator should do whatever they want. I mean movies are "make-believe" in the first place, and some want to escape reality. Personally, I just want better quality, and I don't think corporate approved art is the way to go. It will be the way to sell, since these boycotts (or the reverse) seem to make a difference. Even when it comes to silly pillows.

I spent a few hours in a political chat room, and I could tell the party of their choice just by which football player they booed. It's very limited, trendy "thinking". I think there's too much conformity, but I'm also not a fan of making non-conformity an industry.

reply

Your race & class & sexual orientation more-or-less speak for you. Its only the non-conventional that are noticeable in that respect.

Our identity is not entirely of our own choosing & making. All should be welcomed, or at least included.

reply

Race & class & sexual orientation are irrelevant, people are individuals and only content of character matters. MLK was right.

Everyone already is included, that’s not the point. The point is that Hollywood is being destroyed by wokism masquerading as ‘inclusiveness’.

reply

MLK probably wouldn't have hired you as his interpreter.

reply

He doesn’t need an interpreter, his message was perfectly clear and it’s being torn apart by racist woke cultists.

reply

MLK was speaking of an ideal to be reached, not a reality to be dealt with. Seriously, republicans just embarrass themselves when speaking about matters they either don't/won't understand, don't/won't accept, largely hold in contempt (just as -actually- equal voting rights, equal opportunity).

Save your lectures, your outrages. We understand you perfectly.

reply

Treating others based on the content of their character and not the colour of their skin was MLK’s ‘dream’ and it became a reality… until the Left went batshit with identity politics and reintroduced racism.

Not only have you reintroduced racism, you’re now engaging in tribal hatred attacking ‘republicans’. The irony is that you, much like Nazis and Communists, think you’re the good guys.

You’re not, you’re the villains, and normal people understand that very well.

reply

What "virtual invisibility"? How many decades ago?

You mean like Alien, with the main character played by Sigourney Weaver in 1979? Supergirl, played by Helen Slater in 1984? Any of dozens of action films led by Eddie Murphy in the 80's? Wesley Snipes in the 90's? Will Smith's entire career? Halle Berry's?

I seriously don't get where this notion that "Hollywood movies featured exclusively straight white men until, like, yesterday" comes from, because it sure as hell isn't borne out by any actual facts.

reply