Woke Culture is Clueless Why Average People Do Not Like Woke Entertainment

[FireDragon76]

We have seen the feminisation of society over recent years. Male traits and mascullinity have been demonised and neutralised in schools and boys are falling behind in education

This isn't about feminization of anything. It's about how far we take the analogy of God as being a father, and seek ways to include other metaphors that include a wider variety of human experience.

Most denominations, such as my own, that have gender-neutral language about God, do not adhere to this in a rigid manner as might be suggested.

 

[stevevw]

This isn't about feminization of anything. It's about how far we take the analogy of God as being a father, and seek ways to include other metaphors that include a wider variety of human experience.

Most denominations, such as my own, that have gender-neutral language about God, do not adhere to this in a rigid manner as might be suggested.

I don't know from what I have read of the beliefs of some churches its pretty well the same as the language used for gender ideology which is influenced by 2nd wave feminism. Practically take the maleness out of scripture and making out there is no masculline in God, Christ or the Holy spirit.

This makes sense because research has shown that most of those who attend these churches are progressive and support the same ideology that secular society pushes in education and other institutions.

Not just a compromise of scripture and the representation of natural maleness but also other progressive ideas like pro abortion rights, SSM and trans ideology. They have made Christ into a liberal type of guy who allowed almost anything that secular society allows. I don't see much difference.

Whereas Christ said His coming does not change the laws and that He came to divide society because of His word. That there would be many false prophets that would be like sheep in wolves clothing.

The church of Christ should not be in line with secular societies ideology but in conflict with it. They should be attacked for not aligning with secular ideology not be part of it. Its standing on Christs truth that will cause the church to be out of synch with all these progressive beliefs.

 

[stevevw]

What, in your opinion, are some examples of unnatural “wokeness” in contemporary animated Disney movies?

Theres plenty. Just the recent furore over Snow White in how the leading actress wants to portray a more feminist type Snow White. Why bring in politics into a classic.

I gave the examples of how Bud pushed trans into their beer marketing. Why it has nothing to do with beer and in fact Bud completely misread who their own customers were because the ironic thing is that Bud drinkers were the least people who would support Trans ideology.

This shows they were too preoccupied with virtue signalling to their customers rather than just seeling beer. The same with Gillette, Target and a bunch of other corporations.

Many movies have this ideological over reach. It may not be picked up by most people. It can be as subtle as focusing too much on ensuring the right % of each minortity is represented in movies. I know right away now and avoid these movies as they are not very good. Not realistic. We don't see this exact % and reflection is real life.

Another is the overuse women beating up guys, and virtually being men. THis is part of the ideology. Pushing the idea that there is absolutely no difference between men and women. That sex and gender are fluid. You can see it a mile away.

I remeber Shapiro mentioning how Hollywood and the media began to do this in the 80's and 90's which is around the time the progressive ideas started to be pushed from academia nwith the critical theories.

They would take a popular character like say Madge from the Golden girls who everyone loved and looked up to. Then they would introduce a controversial issue like Madge had an abortion when she was younger in an episode. That they were able to reengineer societies attitudes by linking an existing immoral norms to a character that they thought was moral. Then it becomes well if Madfge can do I guess its not that bad.

This is how ideologues socially engineer society with their ideas. Whoever is in the position of power to manipulate media gets to dictate social norms. Do it enough times chipping away, adding these little tweeks like making out women are the same as men or any progressive idea and people begin to believe it.

Exept eventually it backfires because its not reality and that is exactly what we are beginning to see with Go Woke and Go Broke and the rejection of DEI and how many organisations like Facebook are now coming out and admitting that big corp and State were pushing these censorships and narratives on society.

 

[FireDragon76]

This makes sense because research has shown that most of those who attend these churches are progressive and support the same ideology that secular society pushes in education and other institutions.

My church has more Democrats than average, but that's probably because we have alot of historically Black congregations. But otherwise, everybody is welcome, including Republicans.

Politics actually doesn't play a very big role in our church's life. Partisan politics is definitely not something that's part of it.

Not just a compromise of scripture and the representation of natural maleness but also other progressive ideas like pro abortion rights, SSM and trans ideology. They have made Christ into a liberal type of guy who allowed almost anything that secular society allows. I don't see much difference.

We have different ideas about what Christian ethics means, obviously.

And yeah, I do think Jesus was a liberal, among other things. Not afraid to admit that. The pharisees were the religious conservatives of his day.

Whereas Christ said His coming does not change the laws and that He came to divide society because of His word. That there would be many false prophets that would be like sheep in wolves clothing.

You can't reduce a biblical ethic, much less the ethics of Jesus, down to a few verses used as cheap slogans for reactionary politics.

The church of Christ should not be in line with secular societies ideology but in conflict with it.

Our values aren't in line with secular society, necessarily. I don't think that's a fair characterization at all, and wouldn't agree with that perspective. I think people woh say these things about our churches don't actually know much about them.

 

[stevevw]

My church has more Democrats than average, but that's probably because we have alot of historically Black congregations.

I though the black church was very conservative when it came to following GOds laws especially with the family. They began the civil rights movement with Dr KIng and they were big on keeping Gods word. They had strong communities and families unlike the progressive democrate communities today with broken and high fatherless families.

Politics actually doesn't play a very big role in our church's life.

Thats good as many of these progressive churches are no different to mainstrean secular beliefs and the one main factor that is in common is political ideology. Studies do show that progressive churches have more democrates but also radical left ideology like pro abortion or SSM and even compromise on Gods truth and order.

THis shows they have fallen for political correctness over truth so they can be relevant in modern society. But it also shows how Woke is very good at disguising itself as something nobel and appearing to be the right thing to do on the surface.

We can tell by whether it bears good fruits and quite often as we have seen with how these ideas and beliefs have caused conflict and division that this is not good fruit but bad.

We have different ideas about what Christian ethics means, obviously.

Thats strange as I thought that CHristians should be on the same page with Gods truth and Christs teachings. Paul wrote to the church even warning against these ideologies creeping in and disguising themselves as prophets.

I look at it pragmatically. If the teachings bear good fruit then it is Gods truth. If it bears bad fruit it is not of God. Simple as that. But the truth always aligns with Gods truth and word.

Take abortion. The progressive church will compromise on this because they have to. They are all about standing up for individual and group rights. Championing the victim. Its a very nobel and appealing cause and nobody can disagree with this. Thats why its like sheep in wolves clothing.

But when we look at what God said we know that He knows us in the womb and before we were concieved. Each of those aborted fetuses is Gods child. But the progressive is identity and rights based political ideology. Its about rights, womens rights, LGBTIQ+ rights. THis is the Jesus who is all loving and accepting taking overboard.

So you can see we have two different truths or basis for what is moral and truth. One is Gods and stands no matter what even if politically incorrect. The other stands for human made ideology where the individual or groups experiences and rights trump GOds truth. Thats why its easy to fall into Woke because its not necessarily a bad thing. It just allows human truth rather than standing on Gods truth.

And yeah, I do think Jesus was a liberal, among other things. Not afraid to admit that. The pharisees were the religious conservatives of his day.

Yes they were the sticklers for the law to the extreme of far Right. But we also have a Left version happening today. This is the one that ostrasizes and cancels people who are not Woke. It belittles those who don't go along and makes them out to be breakers of the Woke law. We have seen this happening such as the no platforming and cancellation of people for simple expressing their belief.

Thats the other thing the same ideology actually attacks those who speak Gods truth. So thats another fruit we can tell. Today if you say that Gods order was for man and women to become one flesh in marriage and anything outside that falls short you would be attacked as hateful and even a heretic. So we can tell by whether it conforms with Gods truth.

You can't reduce a biblical ethic, much less the ethics of Jesus, down to a few verses used as cheap slogans for reactionary politics.

I think this is another way Gods truth is being watered down. This is really a Postmodern influence where we now question everything to the point that everything has become relative. So many truths have been thrown into the mix that people cannot be confident anymore of a clear truth.

But the idea that Christ was a soppy type of guy who allowed everything is wrong. He accepted gay and trans but like the adulterous women He said go and sin no more. Thats the other part of the deal and we know if we follow that its certainly not the freedom that modern progressive society is wanting at the same to being Christains.

As far as I understand the gospel has two parts. Its about the good news and salvation which should be a greater freedom than any other the world offers. But its also a warning for sinners to repent. The time is coming for Gods judgement. It wasn't just the Pharisees but sinners.

Christ even points this out and so does Paul in building the church. People will be divided and the world will hate you for standing on Christs truth. As far as I understand the world is Woke and progressive and also far right ideology. Thats destinct from Gods truth and the fruits of Christs spirit which are the same no matter what and not PC.

Our values aren't in line with secular society, necessarily. I don't think that's a fair characterization at all, and wouldn't agree with that perspective. I think people woh say these things about our churches don't actually know much about them.

I am not saying this about your church or any particular church. I am pointing out what is a fact about modern society and how many progressive churches believe and how that belief is acted on and the results that has within the church and society.

I am not just speaking theologically but also sociologically and culturally. How religions work with society and how humans beehave religiously and the influences that go into that such as political especially ideologically.

Anyway its just my observations based on a lot of reading and research and I am not saying its exactly that way. But there is something to that effect involved I think.

 

[stevevw]

I agree, I dread the day that they will try & Woke the Bible.

They already are. The obvious one is to demascullinise God and Jesus. That begins with first not mentioning the male pronouns. Remember everything is about pronouns and to be inclusive because Christ is inclusive all pronouns must be included. They say Christ would have used pronouns. Injecting ideology into Christs thinking is a direct reimaging of Christ.

So thats the justification. Then the female pronouns are slipped in. First implicitly and then explicitly even referring to God as she or neutral in pronoun. There is a reason God and Christ are referred to in the male. There is an aspect of our maleness and femaleness that is reflected in who we are in God.

I have read some of the so call Christain feminist doctrines and even the ideas of feminist and Christain don't go together. You can't water down feminism otherwise its no longer feminism. So Gods word is watered down. There is a lot of spirit worship like mother earth and pagan type spirital beliefs associated.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Theres plenty. Just the recent furore over Snow White in how the leading actress wants to portray a more feminist type Snow White.

There are “plenty,” but you can only name one that you haven’t seen because it’s not out yet? k

Why bring in politics into a classic.

When was the last time you watched that “classic”? I hadn’t seen the movie in ages, but I just read an abridged illustrated version to my daughter last night and that “classic” is not a good story, and Snow White as a character is absolutely vapid. All she does is run away and clean somebody’s house. I don’t have a very high opinion of certain other classics (e.g. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty), but even against that low bar, I was surprised at just how shallow the whole thing was. Thinking I’d missed something, I read some online summaries and, nope. That’s it.

Bringing “feminism” (if that’s even the language that was used) into the new adaptation doesn’t necessarily mean “politics.” In this case, it can quite easily mean just making the character interesting and capable of doing something for herself.

I remeber Shapiro mentioning …

k

how Hollywood and the media began to do this in the 80's and 90's which is around the time the progressive ideas started to be pushed from academia nwith the critical theories.

They would take a popular character like say Madge from the Golden girls who everyone loved and looked up to. Then they would introduce a controversial issue like Madge had an abortion when she was younger in an episode. That they were able to reengineer societies attitudes by linking an existing immoral norms to a character that they thought was moral. Then it becomes well if Madfge can do I guess its not that bad.

This is how ideologues socially engineer society with their ideas. Whoever is in the position of power to manipulate media gets to dictate social norms. Do it enough times chipping away, adding these little tweeks like making out women are the same as men or any progressive idea and people begin to believe it.

Exept eventually it backfires because its not reality and that is exactly what we are beginning to see with Go Woke and Go Broke and the rejection of DEI and how many organisations like Facebook are now coming out and admitting that big corp and State were pushing these censorships and narratives on society.

If you think that art/media didn’t start addressing sensitive sociopolitical topics until the 80’s, then I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[FireDragon76]

I though the black church was very conservative when it came to following GOds laws especially with the family.

Some are, some aren't.

They began the civil rights movement with Dr KIng and they were big on keeping Gods word.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was trained at a seminary that taught liberal and neo-orthodox theology. He was not a fundamentalist Christian and did not have a fundamentalist biblical hermeneutic.

They had strong communities and families unlike the progressive democrate communities today with broken and high fatherless families.

An ugly and inaccurate stereotype.

 

[Apple Sky]

They already are. The obvious one is to demascullinise God and Jesus. That begins with first not mentioning the male pronouns. Remember everything is about pronouns and to be inclusive because Christ is inclusive all pronouns must be included. They say Christ would have used pronouns. Injecting ideology into Christs thinking is a direct reimaging of Christ.

So in other words they are reducing the Bible down to pronouns ?

 

[FireDragon76]

Last time I chdecked, the Gospel wasn't about having "strong, healthy communities", it was about preaching goods news to the poor and the oppressed. Of course that has a political dimension, and I'm afraid it doesn't look like what most white, conservative Christians think it looks like.

 

[stevevw]

There are “plenty,” but you can only name one that you haven’t seen because it’s not out yet? k

I can name many. Ghostbusters (2016), Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017), The Marvels (2023), Charlies Angels (2019), Men In Black: International, (2019), Mulan (2020) and Oceans Eight to name a few. All flops due to Woke.

We know that the later Snow White has Woke issues because its had more coverage on the woke issues than on the actual movie already and they have had to change it. They have had to rein it the lead actresses political statements and once again its not about entertainment but politics.

When was the last time you watched that “classic”? I hadn’t seen the movie in ages, but I just read an abridged illustrated version to my daughter last night and that “classic” is not a good story, and Snow White as a character is absolutely vapid. All she does is run away and clean somebody’s house. I don’t have a very high opinion of certain other classics (e.g. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty), but even against that low bar, I was surprised at just how shallow the whole thing was. Thinking I’d missed something, I read some online summaries and, nope. That’s it.

Theres no problem in updating things so long as it reflects reality and not changing to a point where its now actually more about making a political point. There have been some good remakes done. Titanic is a good remake. The Joker is another. How they go into the psychology behind why the joker grew into an antisocial misfit.

But the updates still reflect reality in these remakes and they are based on real possibilities and realities that we can see in life. Not changing the color of Snow White. The movies called Snow White. If you want to make a statement about race do it in a race movie about civil rights which we have many true life examples.

By changing the color of Snow Whites skin was making making it all about race to begin with and it took the focus off the story itself and made it political. That was just the start. Then making it about feminism by making Snow White a girl boss pushed more into identity politics before the movie is released.

It completely changes the original story but not because of poetic licence remaining true to the original concept. But making the changes specifically about political correctness and nothing else. Then there was issues about the dwarfs and why they were not using real actors when they had great actors available. It has become a political time bomb.

Bringing “feminism” (if that’s even the language that was used) into the new adaptation doesn’t necessarily mean “politics.” In this case, it can quite easily mean just making the character interesting and capable of doing something for herself.

No bringing feminism or feminist ideology into it is politics. Rachel Zegler specifically mentioned feminist ideas such as women not being oppressed and as she said she wanted Snow White to be liberated and bossy. Onlt because it was PC and not to enhance the movie itself.

The two main stars are fighting over race and sex issues because race, sex and gender have been brought in. Its not a good look.

If you think that art/media didn’t start addressing sensitive sociopolitical topics until the 80’s, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Not in the way they are doing today. I watched a lot of movies in the 80s and politics never came into it. Many of them were just plain fun because they were entertaining. No race or gender was brought in. Certainly not like today.

Hollywood wasn't losing money back then on the blockbusters. Look at Star Wars first few movies. Revolutionary in science fiction about space which everyone was interested in. They made millions. But the last couple have been flops due to Woke.

Its not hard to make a good sci fi. Interstella was good. Just stick to space, spaceships and the moral message about who gets saved, bravery or stuff like that. It always works. You can use the artist licence with special effects.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I can name many. Ghostbusters (2016),

Not Disney.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017),

What was "woke" about The Last Jedi?

The Marvels (2023), Charlies Angels (2019), Men In Black: International, (2019), Mulan (2020) and Oceans Eight to name a few.

I haven't seen these. What was "woke" about them?

All flops due to Woke.

lol. Charlie's Angels and Ghostbusters grossed 1.5x their budgets. MIB grossed 2.5x. Ocean's 8 and Last Jedi each grossed more than 4x. You have an interesting definition of "flop".

Theres no problem in updating things so long as it reflects reality

The "reality" that includes magic mirrors and 7 dwarves bunking in the woods?

But the updates still reflect reality in these remakes and they are based on real possibilities and realities that we can see in life. Not changing the color of Snow White. The movies called Snow White. If you want to make a statement about race do it in a race movie about civil rights which we have many true life examples.

By changing the color of Snow Whites skin was making making it all about race to begin with and it took the focus off the story itself and made it political. That was just the start. Then making it about feminism by making Snow White a girl boss pushed more into identity politics before the movie is released.

It completely changes the original story but not because of poetic licence remaining true to the original concept. But making the changes specifically about political correctness and nothing else. Then there was issues about the dwarfs and why they were not using real actors when they had great actors available. It has become a political time bomb.

No bringing feminism or feminist ideology into it is politics. Rachel Zegler specifically mentioned feminist ideas such as women not being oppressed and as she said she wanted Snow White to be liberated and bossy. Onlt because it was PC and not to enhance the movie itself.

Doing anything with that character would enhance the movie. The original character is stupid.

The only thing in the original Disney film that's directly tied to race/skin color is her name. Frankly, upending the association between "pretty" and "white" is a good thing.

The two main stars are fighting over race and sex issues because race, sex and gender have been brought in. Its not a good look.

Who's fighting over "race and sex issues"? The central plot of the movie revolves around an older woman being jealous of a younger, prettier woman. That's inherently a gender issue.

Not in the way they are doing today. I watched a lot of movies in the 80s and politics never came into it. Many of them were just plain fun because they were entertaining. No race or gender was brought in. Certainly not like today.

lol wut? You know that war and international conflict are political, too, right? And loads of movies back then made commentaries on the Vietnam War, which was wildly political. Some, like Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, and The Deer Hunter, were more explicitly about the war, while others like Rambo and Lethal Weapon used it as a in which to set other subversive messages. (Rambo was all about bad cops and mismanagement of the war, while LW shows the white male as the screwup with the white female and black male as responsible)

I didn't see Rambo First Blood until 10-15 years ago and I was really surprised at how overtly political it was.

Ripley's being cast as a woman in Alien was also fairly subversive of gender roles.

Hollywood wasn't losing money back then on the blockbusters.

The definition of a "blockbuster" is that it makes a lot of money.

If your claim is that hollywood didn't lose money on big, expensive projects, well then, you're just wrong.

Look at Star Wars first few movies. Revolutionary in science fiction about space which everyone was interested in. They made millions.

Yes, let's use some of the most successful films in history to use as our benchmark.

But the last couple have been flops due to Woke.

As I already pointed out, your definition of "flop" is lacking.

Its not hard to make a good sci fi.

lol k

Interstella was good. Just stick to space, spaceships and the moral message about who gets saved, bravery or stuff like that. It always works.

ok, so you are okay with teaching morals.

 

[FireDragon76]

lol wut? You know that war and international conflict are political, too, right? And loads of movies back then made commentaries on the Vietnam War, which was wildly political. Some, like Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, and The Deer Hunter, were more explicitly about the war, while others like Rambo and Lethal Weapon used it as a in which to set other subversive messages. (Rambo was all about bad cops and mismanagement of the war, while LW shows the white male as the screwup with the white female and black male as responsible)

Rambo was actually based off a novel that was in turn based off of Frankestein. In the novel, John Rambo is far more of a "monster" than even in the movie. It was very critical of the Vietnam War, not just in how it was executed, but on the nature of the war itself. The character of John Rambo was far more like Tommy Lee Jones's character in the Roger Stone movie Heaven and Earth.

 

[stevevw]

Some are, some aren't.

Isn't that a problem that black churches are no longer following Gods law and order.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was trained at a seminary that taught liberal and neo-orthodox theology. He was not a fundamentalist Christian and did not have a fundamentalist biblical hermeneutic.

King opposed the liberal subversive political ideology of civil rights activists and believed in the beloved community that recognised the human dinful condition and advocated for Gods laws. The beloved community was based on traditional values of the family.

An ugly and inaccurate stereotype.

Its an accurate description based on progressive policies that have undermined the marriage, the family and society as a whole. The Left includes a number of ideologies such as feminism and Marxism. Feminism has always been against the neuclear family and has set out to destroy it. As a result there has been a breakdown in the family and society.

These are well acknowledged facts. How can a party that hates Gods order for the family and society.Heres some simple logic.

We know its a fact that society has become more progressive. We see this with more liberal policies since the 60's on marriage ie easy divorce, devaluing of marriage, out of wedlock children, sex outside marriage and the resulting consequences of massive increases in abortion (nearly 3,000 a day), fatherless kids and all the problems that go with this.

Your obviously a Christain. So you would know Gods order for the family for example. You would know that as a matter of logic the democrates much be a popular progressive party that will have alligenceds to groups that promote anti Christain values like abortion and SSM. Abortion was Harris's No 1 policy to stand on with womens rights. Womens rights is related to feminism and feminism has always been anti family.

Before this Christain values were more dominant as social norms and the breakdown was no where near as bad.

Why the Left is anti-family

Why the Left is anti-family

Abolish the Family is the catchy title of a new book by Philadelphia-based writer Sophie Lewis that was reviewed positively by the New Statesman this

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[RileyG]

Last time I chdecked, the Gospel wasn't about having "strong, healthy communities", it was about preaching goods news to the poor and the oppressed. Of course that has a political dimension, and I'm afraid it doesn't look like what most white, conservative Christians think it looks like.

The only difference is Jesus wouldn’t support SIN like abortion, LGBT nonsense, pornography, cross dressers/drag queens, open borders that harm all. He was no modern liberal, for sure.

And no, Jesus was NOT political.

He came to fulfill the word!

 

[RileyG]

Isn't that a problem that black churches are no longer following Gods law and order.

King opposed the liberal subversive political ideology of civil rights activists and believed in the beloved community that recognised the human dinful condition and advocated for Gods laws. The beloved community was based on traditional values of the family.

Its an accurate description based on progressive policies that have undermined the marriage, the family and society as a whole. The Left includes a number of ideologies such as feminism and Marxism. Feminism has always been against the neuclear family and has set out to destroy it. As a result there has been a breakdown in the family and society.

These are well acknowledged facts. How can a party that hates Gods order for the family and society.Heres some simple logic.

We know its a fact that society has become more progressive. We see this with more liberal policies since the 60's on marriage ie easy divorce, devaluing of marriage, out of wedlock children, sex outside marriage and the resulting consequences of massive increases in abortion (nearly 3,000 a day), fatherless kids and all the problems that go with this.

Your obviously a Christain. So you would know Gods order for the family for example. You would know that as a matter of logic the democrates much be a popular progressive party that will have alligenceds to groups that promote anti Christain values like abortion and SSM. Abortion was Harris's No 1 policy to stand on with womens rights. Womens rights is related to feminism and feminism has always been anti family.

Before this Christain values were more dominant as social norms and the breakdown was no where near as bad.

Why the Left is anti-family

Why the Left is anti-family

Abolish the Family is the catchy title of a new book by Philadelphia-based writer Sophie Lewis that was reviewed positively by the New Statesman this

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Well said.

 

[Fervent]

And yeah, I do think Jesus was a liberal, among other things. Not afraid to admit that. The pharisees were the religious conservatives of his day.

Of all of the various groups of Jewish polity, the Pharisees were the ones who Jesus had the most in common with. Which is why He criticized them so strongly so that His position could be marked off as unique from theirs.

The real issue with "woke culture" isn't that it is peddling "morality" but that the quality of the media is of secondary importance to the "moral" stratements. It's not about liberal or conservative politics, it's about putting politics above telling compelling stories and having interesting characters.

 

[stevevw]

Not Disney.

Oh sorry I forgot you only wanted disney animated ones. Barbi was sort of animated and it was pretty Woke. But funny enough that was one Woke movie I didn't mind as it was also a brilliant idea to make a Barbie movie as a concept entertainment wise.

I mentioned the Marvels and Mulan but there's also She-Hulk and Elemental which was a complete disaster.

What was "woke" about The Last Jedi?

I think mainly because of its overuse of feminist girlboss themes.

I haven't seen these. What was "woke" about them?

Like I said earlier its the specific engineering of sex, gender and race to accord with DEI and gender ideology. For example the girl boss theme is often used where women are made exactly like men and even out performing men. Or the control of language that conforms with DEI ideology.

You have to remember that there is an ideological battle happening. I liken Woke and its beliefs about the world and reality and how society should be ordered compared to the Christain worldview. These are opposing worldviews.

So Woke would be the same as if the Christain worldview was imposed in movies to a Wokist. If movies had Christain themes about marriage, family and relationships. The Woke would say that movies are being socially engineered to support Christain worldviews.

Its just the other way around today where Woke or secular ideology, whatever it is they believe, maybe humanism is the religion that is being pushed in the public square. As a result it has divided people and therefore just like Creationism was banned in schools and being taught in public institutions Woke and DEI should also be disallowed. Because its not fact or reality but a belief and worldview.

lol. Charlie's Angels and Ghostbusters grossed 1.5x their budgets. MIB grossed 2.5x. Ocean's 8 and Last Jedi each grossed more than 4x. You have an interesting definition of "flop".

Yeah I think they expected them to do much better compared to the originals.

For example Oceans * was regarded as pushing feminist ideology.
Ocean’s 8: A Feminist Flop

Ocean’s 8: A Feminist Flop

The ‘gender-swap’ trend is shielding tired remakes from criticism.

www.spiked-online.com

Its not just the box office. If a movie causes such reaction and division then there was something political about it that overstepped the mark. In otherwords the proof is in the pudding. What ever incredients you put in or over fixing on certain ingredients will be reflected in how its recieved.

The "reality" that includes magic mirrors and 7 dwarves bunking in the woods?

Yes so the best way to make a really good update is to make it seem as real life as possible. We have good actors who can play the role of shorter people. But for some strange reason due to some PC they end up making animated dwarves which look unreal and spoil it.

Peter Dinklage criticises Disney for ‘backwards’ remake of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Actor who has a form of dwarfism says the studio’s pride in casting a Latina Snow White is undercut by stereotypes retained elsewhere

www.theguardian.com

Doing anything with that character would enhance the movie. The original character is stupid.

The only thing in the original Disney film that's directly tied to race/skin color is her name. Frankly, upending the association between "pretty" and "white" is a good thing.

Sure you can liven up the character. But thats a different thing to the moral and political ideaological messages attached within the movie that are injected inon top. You have more or less just made one when you say "Frankly, upending the association between "pretty" and "white" is a good thing". Thats politicising the movie.

What about all those who have no issue with a white female character and beauty being associated. This is a reality and everyone acknowledges. It would be the same if a movie had a beautiful black women. It would be the same if there was a disabled actor like Captain Hook who always looks ugly and angry.

It is how the story is. There is no politics about the characters as they are just based on real life. Its only when someone makes it an issue and injects politics into it and changes the whole original concept.

We can recognise this easily by how everyone starts arguing and getting in conflicts over race, gender and sex. Its as simple as that. If people are not talking about politics with a movie then they have avoided being political.

Who's fighting over "race and sex issues"? The central plot of the movie revolves around an older woman being jealous of a younger, prettier woman. That's inherently a gender issue.

Zegler and Gal Gadot. Somehow the Isreali and Palestinian issue got dragged in. Because Zegler has been so outspoken supporting the Palestinians this has offended Gadot who is Isreali.

Zegler who stars as Snow White, and Gadot, who plays the Evil Queen, are reportedly at odds over their public stances on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Their opposing views have sparked significant controversy, with branding experts warning that their feud could lead to calls for a boycott.

Snow White cast clash: Rachel Zegler vs. Gal Gadot—Who will reign remake?

The Snow White reboot has been rocked by scandal once again, with leading ladies Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot embroiled in a real-life feud. Zegler who stars as Snow White, and Gadot, who plays...

www.thenews.com.pk

I mean you don't need all this controversy as it distracts from the movie itself and taints it before its even screened. Not good advertisement. But this is only happening because its been made an issue. Celebs virtue signal and make political statements all the time. People got sick of hollywood celebs virtue signalling at the Oscars and they lost millions of viewers.

lol wut? You know that war and international conflict are political, too, right? And loads of movies back then made commentaries on the Vietnam War, which was wildly political. Some, like Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, and The Deer Hunter, were more explicitly about the war, while others like Rambo and Lethal Weapon used it as a in which to set other subversive messages. (Rambo was all about bad cops and mismanagement of the war, while LW shows the white male as the screwup with the white female and black male as responsible)

Yes like I said real life stories are different. They are reporting facts and don't really take sides or push any particular politics.

If anything the telling of real life events even ones that we deem wrong are in themselves the moral, the revealing of human behaviour in reality. It is from this that we gain insight into how we can behave badly or live morally because we see ourselves in reality warts and all.

I didn't see Rambo First Blood until 10-15 years ago and I was really surprised at how overtly political it was.

Not really. The moral message was about the innocent man who is being harrassed and his life threatened beats massive odds to win his freedom. All the action is just the artist wrapping to make it exciting as that was the theme back then with action movies. Still is really.

Stallones movies followed a similar moral theme and Rocky probably captures it best where a done on his luck person from the bad side of town can overcome the odds to become champion of the world. Which was based on a true story.

Ripley's being cast as a woman in Alien was also fairly subversive of gender roles.

I think it was different back then. Though it was the beginning of a harder push with 2nd wave feminism. But the original Alians didn't have politics and I think thats why you could have women sometimes play these more macho roles because in reality there were such women.

But its the over use, the continuous pushing of women being macho all the time, beating men to the point that there is no longer any destinction between men and women in this way. That is the Woke or social engineering overreach that is pushing political ideology. Which is for progressives there is no difference between men and women. In fact gender is fluid. A man can become a women ect.

As I already pointed out, your definition of "flop" is lacking.

Well I am not the only one. Like I said its the fans and really if there is political talk and arguements over a film then this is evidence in itself that its overly political and will sales will be effected. Some have done badly and others never met expectations. But they all have a legacy of political division about them. Thus not uniting society but dividing.

ok, so you are okay with teaching morals.

Yes like I said morals are naturally in real life experiences and we make stories based on that. Its inherent. Theres always a villian and hero or good verse evil. The same archetypcal moral themes are repeated time and time again in different ways.

But we never stop and try to artifically change them. They will naturally change. When we do are actually enforcing a particular moral belief onto others. I used the Creationism in schools example.

So really it doesn't matter if its Woke or Creationism or Marxism or any other moral and metaphysical belief about how the world and society should be ordered. The public square should not be pushing one set or moral beliefs and worldview over others onto society. That is exactly what Woke, DEI and Trans ideology is doing.

The fact that at least half if not the majority of people disagree with Woke PC and trans ideology shows that the pushing of it in movies or our institutions is pushing something that others don't believe in. Thus its pushing a belief over other beliefs onto society.

Last year, the company admitted to investors that there was a growing ‘misalignment’ between Disney’s output and ‘public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment’. ‘Consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest’, it said, are risking the company’s reputation and profits.

Disney: a billion-dollar casualty of woke

The entertainment giant is paying a heavy price for trying to shove identity politics down our throats.

www.spiked-online.com

So regardless of what people say Disney itself admitted it was being Woke and that this was affecting profits and reputation.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Oh sorry I forgot you only wanted disney animated ones. Barbi was sort of animated and it was pretty Woke. But funny enough that was one Woke movie I didn't mind as it was also a brilliant idea to make a Barbie movie as a concept entertainment wise.

Barbie wasn't Disney, either. But, I concede, it was pretty "woke" - and, IMO, the "wokeness" was pretty ham-fisted and executed in a way that made the movie less than it could have been.

But it was anything but a flop. I'm probably one of the only people who didn't care for it, because it was one of the most successful movies of that year.

I think mainly because of its overuse of feminist girlboss themes.

I don't remember those in the movie, other than the fact that Rey is a woman.

For example Oceans * was regarded as pushing feminist ideology.
Ocean’s 8: A Feminist Flop

Ocean’s 8: A Feminist Flop

The ‘gender-swap’ trend is shielding tired remakes from criticism.

www.spiked-online.com

Its not just the box office. If a movie causes such reaction and division then there was something political about it that overstepped the mark. In otherwords the proof is in the pudding. What ever incredients you put in or over fixing on certain ingredients will be reflected in how its recieved.

That reviewers' argument is that it flops as a tool of feminism (a point on which I'd agree), not that it flopped commercially.

That's an entirely different argument than what you were presenting earlier.

Yes so the best way to make a really good update is to make it seem as real life as possible. We have good actors who can play the role of shorter people. But for some strange reason due to some PC they end up making animated dwarves which look unreal and spoil it.

Peter Dinklage criticises Disney for ‘backwards’ remake of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Actor who has a form of dwarfism says the studio’s pride in casting a Latina Snow White is undercut by stereotypes retained elsewhere

www.theguardian.com

I think there's probably no making Dinklage happy in this case because the story itself is problematic - he's criticized small people for taking dwarf roles and now he's criticizing Disney for making them as cartoons.

Sure you can liven up the character. But thats a different thing to the moral and political ideaological messages attached within the movie that are injected inon top. You have more or less just made one when you say "Frankly, upending the association between "pretty" and "white" is a good thing". Thats politicising the movie.

No, equating "white" and "pretty" is, itself, a politicization. Breaking that association is playing the same game. People tend to only notice the latter because they're so used to the former that they've normalized it.

What about all those who have no issue with a white female character and beauty being associated.

What about them?

This is a reality and everyone acknowledges.

What's a reality? That there are people who equate "white" with "beautiful"?

There is no politics about the characters as they are just based on real life.

No, they are not based on "real life". I don't know why you think that. Who is Snow White based on?

Zegler and Gal Gadot. Somehow the Isreali and Palestinian issue got dragged in. Because Zegler has been so outspoken supporting the Palestinians this has offended Gadot who is Isreali.

Zegler who stars as Snow White, and Gadot, who plays the Evil Queen, are reportedly at odds over their public stances on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Their opposing views have sparked significant controversy, with branding experts warning that their feud could lead to calls for a boycott.

Snow White cast clash: Rachel Zegler vs. Gal Gadot—Who will reign remake?

The Snow White reboot has been rocked by scandal once again, with leading ladies Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot embroiled in a real-life feud. Zegler who stars as Snow White, and Gadot, who plays...

www.thenews.com.pk

The Israel-Palestine conflict is not, primarily, a racial conflict - at least not in the way that race has largely manifested itself in the US.

Also, that's not in the movie. It's attached to the movie because of things the people involved with it have said outside of the movie, but it's not part of the movie itself.

Not really. The moral message was about the innocent man who is being harrassed and his life threatened beats massive odds to win his freedom. All the action is just the artist wrapping to make it exciting as that was the theme back then with action movies. Still is really.

I wasn't talking about the action; I was talking about the motivations of all of the people in the movie. All of the stuff about abusive cops and Vietnam is very political.

 

[FireDragon76]

Isn't that a problem that black churches are no longer following Gods law and order.

They don't see it that way (that they aren't following "God's law and order"), of course.

King opposed the liberal subversive political ideology of civil rights activists

King was a liberal, albeit of a Christian humanist sort. He criticized Marxism on rare occasion, but his politics orientation was towards social democracy, and later in his life, especially before his assassination, he shifted towards his Poor People's Campaign, which was focused on economic justice for low-wage workers.

and believed in the beloved community that recognised the human dinful condition and advocated for Gods laws. The beloved community was based on traditional values of the family.

No. The concept of the Beloved Community comes from late 19th and early 20th century American idealist philosophy of Josiah Royce. It's the notion of a social group or community that is invested in the welfare of their neighbors, where everyone is cared for just for being a human being. It is has strong influences from the Christian tradition, of course, but of a liberal sort, not biblical fundamentalism. Royce was a member of what later became the liberal Mainline, he was not allied with biblical fundamentalism.

Its an accurate description based on progressive policies that have undermined the marriage, the family and society as a whole. The Left includes a number of ideologies such as feminism and Marxism. Feminism has always been against the neuclear family and has set out to destroy it. As a result there has been a breakdown in the family and society.

It's not necessarily accurate, more like polemic of certain ideologues on the Right to distract from substantive discussion. Basically, it's poisoning the well.

How can a party that hates Gods order for the family and society.Heres some simple logic.

THe Democrat Party doesn't have hating God on its platform, last time I checked. Nor do they have hatred of the family as part of it, either.
Again, more polemics that lack substance.

We know its a fact that society has become more progressive. We see this with more liberal policies since the 60's on marriage ie easy divorce, devaluing of marriage, out of wedlock children, sex outside marriage and the resulting consequences of massive increases in abortion (nearly 3,000 a day), fatherless kids and all the problems that go with this.

This is becoming just a screed at this point.