Studios keep spewing out woke content meant for “modern audiences” (i.e. female and diverse) that end up failing.
Yet Reacher season 2 ends up being a massive hit for Amazon with 58% being male and two thirds of that being over 50.
https://collider.com/reacher-dad-tv-alan-ritchson
🤣
shareyou lost me, what is the correct percentage of females ?
shareShould everything be made be made for men and specifically dads?
shareBased on who’s watching movies and shows, yeah.
shareSo you basically want nothing but generic action-espionage flicks with male leads?
shareNah. But those would be made for male audiences if it’s a hot anctress and it avoids the wokeness.
shareWhat would you consider "wokeness" specifically, exactly?
What I was getting at is that it genuinely seems that you want dumb action shows and nothing else, and think everything else is a waste.
The idea is to make TV shows and movies that people want. Instead of making stuff a few "creators" think people should want.
shareAnd what types of shows are made that are only things the creators think people "should want"? Any examples?
shareHave you heard of "agenda driven" entertainment Disney has been actively pushing?
Instead of meanings or entertainment, now we get lectured on social agenda.
For example, Marvel's Echo and Secret Invasion, you can just feel the girl power. Not to mention the new star wars trilogy.
Have you watched the new Indiana Jones?
>Have you heard of "agenda driven" entertainment Disney has been actively pushing?
Tons of people watch those shows regardless of how bad they may or may not be. People seem to like capeshit over and over again.
>For example, Marvel's Echo and Secret Invasion, you can just feel the girl power. Not to mention the new star wars trilogy.
Some advice.
There's more to modern TV than the MCU and Star Wars
Those are the biggest franchises, they are hard to avoid.
shareI can avoid them all by just not having Disney my dude
And no, in TV they are not remotly as ubiquitous.
Disney is hardly the only one pushing it, but I think it is the only major studio pushing it on all its franchises and platforms.
Think about the Netflix shows like "Heart Of Stone", "Ghosted" and "Rebel Moon", and the new "Dungeons and Dragons" and "Barbie" movies.
And the almost all black version of transformers.
They might not be ubiquitous, but they are there more often than not.
I don't mind it if they do a decent job, but it seems they prioritise social agenda, way above good stories. It seems they are even willing to lose money over it, which is just too weird in a capitalist world.
Are those social agenda that important?
>Think about the Netflix shows like "Heart Of Stone", "Ghosted" and "Rebel Moon", and the new "Barbie" movie.
Barbie isn't Netflix. Also Barbie is a really bad example because it was very financially successful.
The other movies (not shows) you referred to look generic as fuck.
>And the almost all black version of transformers.
Are you expecting some peak, prestige version of Transformers?
>I don't mind it if they do a decent job, but it seems they prioritise social agenda, way above good stories. It seems they are even willing to lose money over it, which is just too weird in a capitalist world.
Like Barbie, which did very well?
Barbie is a really bad example because it was very financially successful.
No idea. But your point initially was that people should "make TV shows and movies that people want. Instead of making stuff a few "creators" think people should want."
Barbie is clearly not an example of unprofitable content.
Barbie is profitable, but not all of the new Marvel movies are financial failures, they are just not as profitable as before.
So they are willing to take a hit on financial performance to push social agenda.
Hard to tell if the Barbie movie is the same.
>Hard to tell if the Barbie movie is the same.
Barbie was one of the most profitable films last year.
>So they are willing to take a hit on financial performance to push social agenda.
People are also generally getting tired of superhero flics, which impacts profits, and people are going to the cinemas less.
But if studios only considered profitability over everything else, we'd never get any niche products made. Everything would be bland.
People are also generally getting tired of superhero flics, which impacts profits, and people are going to the cinemas less.
But if studios only considered profitability over everything else, we'd never get any niche products made. Everything would be bland.
>That is what Disney has been saying, but I think we all know that is not entirely true.
You don't think that less people go to the cinemas now?
>That is why the new South Park episode 'Joining the Panderverse' getting so much attention.
South Park is a cultural giant. Anything they do gets lots of attention. Also that episode isn't getting much attention right now.
>But everything is bland, haven't you noticed?
No, I have not. At all. There's plenty of different TV shows made in the last 5 years.
Your advice here is to propose that everything is generic, so as to appeal as many people as possible.
You don't think that less people go to the cinemas now?
>But everything is bland, haven't you noticed?
No, I have not. At all.
>I think people are not going to the movies simply because movies are just not as good as before.
This is true, but it's also the rise of streaming and people being able to have home entertainment systems in their office or living room.
>I don't think you are being honest, then again that is not something we can settle with facts and numbers.
Can you tell me when you think everything "went bland" and what TV shows you actually enjoy? I don't follow movies much, but on TV you're hyperfocused on Disney and they're just one part of modern TV.
I enjoyed 'Frasier', that is one of my favoured shows, the new 'Fraiser' however not so much, it is generic and bland.
I enjoy 'That 70s show', the new 'That 90s show' however is generic and bland.
I enjoyed 'How I met your mother', the new 'How I met your father' is generic and bland.
Those are the most obvious comparisons.
I enjoyed 'Fargo' session 1 - 4, the session 5 however is generic and bland.
The most recently 2 shows are watchable:
'Monarch Legacy of Monsters', I like monster shows.
And 'Reacher', which is made for entertainment clearly.
Since 2020:
The Last of Us, Severance, Silo, House of the Dragons, One Piece, Black Bird, Foundation, Raised by Wolves, Dopesick, Yellowjackets, From, Shrinking, Slow Horses, Devs, Mayor of Kingstown, Gangs of London, The Bear. Masters of the Air is about to come out.
And you didn't watch the Succession or Better Call Saul?
And you didn't watch the Succession or Better Call Saul?
>I watched them, but they are so slow and boring I could not even past the first episode.
Have you considered that you may well have unusual tastes?
Succession and BCS are amongst some of the most iconic, highly acclaimed modern TV shows. Both will go down in history as some of the best TV shows ever.
Not unusual, I think my taste is painfully pedestrian.
I just think they are more 'niche'. Like the shows I listed below.
In any case you have to care about the characters, I just don't care about them.
>Not unusual, I think my taste is painfully pedestrian.
I mean, you said it. There are tons of more non-bland modern shows around, as I said, but you've just admitted you're not into that. It seems based on your history here that you *want* "bland" content.
>I just think they are more 'niche'. Like the shows I listed below.
Succession is a multiple Emmy-award winner. BCS has missed out, but been nominated countless times.
And yeah, they're "niche" if you're comparing them, to say, Greys Anatomy, Emily in Paris or Ginny & Georgia. But they're all highly acclaimed and highly watched in their own rights.
But only making entertainment for the average person would lead to nothing but bland sitcoms, cop shows and medical dramas.
That is why I am saying my taste is very pedestrian, I mainly like comedy, action and sci-fi, nothing too dull and slow.
I like 'Emily in Paris' and 'Only Murders in the Building'.
For cop shows I liked "The wire" a lot, but I can tolerate "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" and "Psych", but I am not into CSI or 24.
And if your taste is pedestrian, then how would you know if everything is becoming bland?
shareTo me, it becomes bland.
And it wasn't just me saying it, a lot of other people here expressed similar sentiment.
>To me, it becomes bland.
But you said you liked "pedestrian" entertainment.
Like this show, Silo, came out last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYhuvIv1pA
It's clearly not a generic TV show.
>And it wasn't just me saying it, a lot of other people there expressed similar sentiment.
Where? Here?
Unfortunately this place does not have an advance search function, it is to difficult to find the past posts.
My taste is pedestrian, but that doesn't mean I can't tell if a show is bland.
Also why are you so obsessed about why I think the modern shows are bland?
>Also why you are so obsessed about why I think the modern shows are bland?
Eh, I'm also arguing with a few people in here. Not just you.
It's just odd because you seem to *want* bland, or dumb action, but then argue modern TV is too bland. It doesn't make sense.
Are "Friends", "Friaser" and "That 70s Show" bland to you?
Because they are loved by millions, if not billions.
Now you sound like a snob.
YEAH...AT THIS POINT...THOSE SHOWS ARE A LITTLE BLAND.
shareI know you are a feminist, did not know you are also a snob.
shareFEMINIST?...IS THAT A PUTDOWN NOW?...I LOVE WOMEN...I HAVE A DAUGHTER...I RESPECT WOMEN AS FULLY FORMED HUMAN BEINGS...THAT MAKES ME A FEMINIST?...THAT IS A BAD THING?🤔
share>Are "Friends", "Friaser" and "That 70s Show" bland to you?
I loved Frasier. But my point is that you seem to want relatively generic premises in media (and those shows have generic premises).
Modern TV content is a hub for speculative fiction. People into dystopian, post-apocalyptic fantasy, and sci-fi have never been more spoiled. I'd argue also the same for historical fiction as budgets can now much easier support the sets.
I would argue modern TV is much more adventurous than TV in the 90s and 00s.
Ah, got you now.
You want something new, different and you enjoy that.
I enjoy some of that too, if they are well made. But I won't simply reward ingenuity if they are not entertaining.
I watched GoT only because the amount of nudity carried me to the good stuff. If GoT did not have nudity, I would have turned it off after 30 minutes.
I mean this with the greatest respect, but it doesn't really sound like you're into 'deep' or dialogue-heavy TV shows that don't have a lot of action. Slow-burns, if you will.
But aside from that, you see my point that I don't think you can really fairly call speculative fiction like that "bland".
I am not.
I hate art movies, whether they won awards or not.
Well that's fine, but so long as you do realise that tons of shows, many female-centered shows are shows that people do watch in big numbers. Reacher hasn't tapped into some unique formula.
shareI think because some of them are well made and entertaining.
Like I said, I like shows like "Emily in Paris". And that is a girly show.
Reacher is as manly as a show can be.
shareWell yes, but it's not the only type of show people want. People do watch more "feminine" shows.
shareI fully agree.
Even I watch some of them. If they are entertaining.
Including "woke" stuff like Barbie.
And fluff like Ginny & Georgia, Emily in Paris, Bridgerton.
I hate the Barbie movie, too political, and I am sure girls love it.
I haven't watched Bridgerton because they clearly put way too much diversity in a period drama.
Ginny & Georgia is maybe too girly for me.
There are also "Breaking Bad", "Walking dead", "Narcos", "The office", "Entourage", "Modern Family", "Desperate Housewives" and "The Sopranos", which all had great reviews, but I am just not into them.
shareYES...BARBIE IS A GOOD MOVIE.
shareYeah, to a feminist, I am sure.
shareEVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE,PAL.🙂
shareThat is why I am agreeing with you.
share[–] fc31 (4207) 11 hours ago
Barbie is a really bad example because it was very financially successful.
No doubt, but is it a good movie?
Did it make money because the power of Barbie franchise or the quality of the movie?
IT IS A GENUINELY GOOD MOVIE...IT MADE MONEY BECAUSE OF THAT COUPLED WITH A DYNAMITE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN.
The idea is to make TV shows and movies that people want. Instead of making stuff a few "creators" think people should want.
They are doing that . Males that feel threatened when a female or black is on the screen are a tiny but load mouthed minority,
so in order to keep the most people happy , and therefore make the most money , the current product is optimum for them . and us . just not you .