This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My facebook has been ablaze with the War of the Rings of Power, and by that I mean Amazon putting out tons of propaganda to indicate that everyone is racist for not liking the the Rings of Power, followed by half of the people saying no that doesn't make us racist, and the other half saying they just don't like it because it's a bad show. A similar thing is going on for the Little Mermaid, too. Alas, that these evil days should be mine.
The thing that strikes me is that no one is saying the obvious. To me, and I'll guess to many others, I really don't mind diversification of media. Or, that is to say, I wouldn't mind it, if it weren't for the fact that it's now the norm, it's practically mandatory for any show that doesn't want to be cancelled by internet SJWs, it's crammed down my throat everywhere, and it's turned into a major moral issue where half the audience browbeats the other. I feel like I'm being subjected to someone else's religion.
But that woke audience always comes back to "Why are you against black people playing roles? What are you, racist?" Well, no, I honestly don't think I'm racist. But in the position I'm put in, I get that I am taking actions that a racist would. The only difference is that a true racist would be against black people being cast no matter what, and I am only against it being mandatory and moralized. But since we live in this world, where it is mandatory and moralized, does that mean that there's nothing that would really satisfy me short of black people not being cast?
I don't quite think so. Another point that the woke audience comes to is "They clearly just thought that Halle Berry was the best person to play Ariel". And really, I think the answer to that is, no, they clearly prioritize diversity casting. She is black and they want to cast lots of black people because it scores them points with the woke crowd (and possibly also because it drums up controversy, which may be good for business). And then on top of that, they thought she'd be fine for the part. I don't know how I can prove that, but it just seems evident to me that diversity casting for its own sake is something that is being given high priority. In some limited cases, it's possible to prove it, such as with Ryan Condal, the showrunner for House of the Dragon who indicated that they cast black people to play Valerians explicitly for the purpose of diversity-washing. However, I'm guessing that Condal regrets saying that outright, because it's not a good look. It gives the other side ammo and also casts doubt as to whether the people hired really would have earned the spot on merit alone.
At this point. I don't really know what it would take to convince me that most castings of black people are not just to fill a quota. But this puts me in a tough spot, because I don't really want to be racist in action, even if I know I'm not in thought.
Whatever Amazon is doing, they're doing something right. I cannot escape hearing about this fucking show from every possible outlet, social media site, and of course this culture war chessboard.
They got you good. They got them good. They somehow got everyone to talk about this show like it's some sort of important cultural event even though half the people are just saying they not gonna watch it. It's like the old prairie home companion line: 'even the Atheist were Lutheran; it's a Lutheran God they don't believe in.
There were already nine hours of LOTR director's cut plus special features and what, an entire prequel trilogy? Did people really want more LOTR? Can you really remember the beginning by the time you finished the end? If I needed more LOTR in my life I'd just rewatch the Jackson trilogy but I don't because I already watched those films. I don't see major gaps in the story that needed to he filled.
Amazon must be laughing all the way to the bank with this one, and it's all but assured that such casting decisions will be made in the future because of the sheer amount of free publicity!
Money. Money is what they are doing right.
More options
Context Copy link
I have to wonder if this is really how people think about it. I see it asserted, but it feels...convenient? I encountered this idea via hbomberguy, who asserted like you are that this is being done as it drums up attention via outrage. However, that means we never ask the question "Is this is just another requirement the show creators feel is necessary in the same way as they would insist on a protagonist and antagonist?"
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah I suspect that this outrage viral marketing will now become standard.
It reminds me of that Erin Moriarty from The Boys "fan misogyny" blowup. I didn't think there was a large scale hatred of her acting at all. The outrage was created from the actions of a small handful of Twitter trolls. It really struck me as a good way to keep the show in the news between seasons.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree, this fanbaiting was adopted by big studios at least since Ghostbusters 2016 with all female cast. The overall phenomenon of critics and showruners vs fanbase dates back to Gamergate if not even farther in the past. And while it may not be the best long-term strategy for the corporations, I think it is the best strategy for people inside those organizations: C-level executives, directors, writers and actors. Even critics are now part of the game - with the Zeitgeist being what it is, they cannot afford standing out too much if they like their career. As an example there is an upcoming The Woman King movie about African Amazonians from historical kingdom of Dahomey fighting white colonialists and slave traders. Predictably it sits at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes with 36 reviews so far, which should make it one of the best movies of all times on par if not better than movies like Citizen Kane (99% out of 127 reviews) or The Godfather (97% out of 149 reviews) and of course Black Panther which has 96% out of whooping 529 reviews.
I agree with you, there is a utility in all these controversies: it is free marketing and a very good shield against constructive criticism of the content.
The media is run by trolls explores the media's role in this, and explicitly uses Ghostbusters 2016 as the turning point.
It points out a particularly diabolical element: the media actually seems to amplify some of these claims in order to use them as fodder for their articles about racist fans.
More options
Context Copy link
Wait a minute, weren't Dahomey fighting the French to keep their slave trade?
According to the BBC review that is at least addressed in the movie:
"These woman are warriors, not saints. Historically, Dahomey flourished by taking captives and selling them, and the film doesn't ignore that complicity. Instead, it enhances Nanisca's role as heroine by making her the king's conscience, telling him more than once that slavery is unnecessary and immoral, even if he is not trading his own people. "
That's fucking hysterical, since almost the entirety of the Dahomeyan Royal Court's food came from slave-worked plantations. And this movie's posters (which are extremely common in LA) have the damn temerity to say "based on a true story"
It's literal "we wuz kangz" historical inversion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes they did, which makes it ahistorical and hilarious. Although I do not necessarily have an issue with that, for instance I liked the movie 300 and also laughed when Leonidas had the speech about age of freedom - yeah, freedom to perpetuate slave society with arguably the highest ratio of slaves to citizens in history.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe it's an "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" situation:
"African Amazonians from historical kingdom of Dahomey: (a) fighting white colonialists and (b) slave traders."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons#Conflict_with_neighbouring_kingdoms
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, for example myself. Though given apparent quality I am not bothering with this one.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, absolutely! People really, really want more LotR. It's the quintessential fantasy book, and fantasy is a pretty popular genre. I'm sure there are plenty of great high fantasy stories out there, but LotR is the big brand name from which people will expect excellence and big budgets. If I want to watch a good war between orcs and elves and humans then that's where I'll go.
I would put it, more accurately, as people wanting more Tolkien.
We can't talk about his corpus like it was a one-and-done thing with LOTR. It is a huge, deep thing that can be mined for years by more respectful and talented writers.
RoP has the Lord of the Rings tag for obvious marketing and rights reasons but it doesn't involve the series proper. It is its own part of the universe (which Amazon only has limited access to) like say...how there's multiple different books and sagas within the Dune or the Shannara world..
One wouldn't say "do we need more Dune?" if someone decided to adapt Children of Dune, as if the source material has been squeezed dry and now the writers are just making things up. (Though one might say: "I don't think Children of Dune is adaptable)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They spent half a billion dollars on this show. That's enough money to make good television that would get people talking about it because of how good it is. And it turns out that internet ideologues are not a massive market, whereas randos who barely use social media are. Those people are more likely to hear about a show from their friends talking about how good it is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link