Why didn't the Right try to even the chances in the Entertainment culture war a bit?

[Kaon]

So explain to me how the entertainment industry co-ordinated, say, the war with Iraq? Or Obamacare?

Music artists sang about Bombs over Baghdad before we went to war, movies constantly had war games with the middle east, and even within our own nation as a premise. Universal healthcare has been a thing in movies since Star Wars and Star Trek.

It is called Predictive Programming. You think it is you who is the one with choice, when you have been conditioned to accept what has been given to you under the illusion of choice.

People consume entertainment and their subliminals, and execute their freedom of choice to adhere to a paradigm already fashioned for them. Politicians are entertainment now; they are constantly bought and sold under the romanticism of Hollywood. The behavior of politicians have been fashioned by entertainment.

 

[RDKirk]

So they scaled back their SW plans and Kathleen Kennedy is in public relations jail because wokeness sells?

Neither one is clear. Kennedy got promoted. We don't know what Disney's SW plans actually are or what lessons they learned.

The facts are: The movies with female leads made humongous bank; the movies with male leads did not.

It's likely they believe more in "Star Wars fatigue" than "SJW fails."

 

[RDKirk]

I don't we are going to get an answer to that. Disney attributes it to fan fatigue and putting out movies too quickly which is why they slowed down. Personally I think it's simpler then that. While I get what they were trying to do, they made a mistake making a Han Solo movie and casting somebody else as Han.

They cast the wrong guy. The fans wanted the guy who played a younger version of Harrison Ford in "The Age of Adeline."

But more significantly: The movie was placed into the wrong medium. Disney should have made it a four- or six-part miniseries for their new streaming service. It simply was not "blockbuster" material, but it could have been developed as an interesting story.

 

[RDKirk]

Assuming that TLJ is the Last Jedi, what was it preaching?



How was it ideological?

"The Last Jedi" contained a radical feminist trope of elevating women specifically by denigrating men. The recent Disney version of "A Wrinkle in Time" did the same thing--more clearly because there is the book and an earlier movie to compare it to.

So let me use "A Wrinkle in Time" to illustrate what I mean. The trope is: "All men must be either feckless or villainous." In the novel "A Wrinkle in Time," there were three prominent male characters.

Charles Wallace. Novel: A brilliant telepath who was necessary for the mission because of his telepathic link to his missing father and his own relationship with Mrs Whatsit. Disney movie: Talkative little jerk with no purpose in the plot whatsoever.

Calvin O'Keefe. Novel: Brave, resilient, folk-wise, solid backup to the lead character Meg. He was the "Samwise Gangee" to Meg's "Frodo." Disney movie: "Damsel in distress."

Mr Murry. Novel: A government scientist who drew the short straw and accidentally disappeared in an experiment gone wrong. Disney movie: He deliberately runs off on his own arrogant quest, forgetting about his family, until he gets captured.

That's also a pattern of Ophrah Winfrey productions. There are never any good males in an Oprah Winfrey production.

There are some studies indicating that males actually don't care that much about the sex of their heroes...but women do.

In one study, males and females were given Star Wars universe stories in which Jedi and Sith characters appeared as both males and females.

Males tended to identify with the Jedi characters (the "good guys") regardless of sex more than they identified with the Sith (the "bad guy") characters.

Women, OTOH, tended to identify with the female characters whether they were Jedi or Sith.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Music artists sang about Bombs over Baghdad before we went to war, movies constantly had war games with the middle east, and even within our own nation as a premise. Universal healthcare has been a thing in movies since Star Wars and Star Trek.

That sounds pretty flimsy. There were also songs protesting going to Iraq. And how is Star Wars and Star Trek pro-Universal Healthcare?

It is called Predictive Programming. You think it is you who is the one with choice, when you have been conditioned to accept what has been given to you under the illusion of choice.

Social Conditioning. It's a neat idea, but it's not quite as effective as we seem to think it is.

People consume entertainment and their subliminals, and execute their freedom of choice to adhere to a paradigm already fashioned for them. Politicians are entertainment now; they are constantly bought and sold under the romanticism of Hollywood. The behavior of politicians have been fashioned by entertainment.

So, why are there different political persuasions? Why do people's political beliefs change over time and with age? How do we know that these views are the result of entertainment consumption and not that entertainment is not a reflection of society?

 

[PeachyKeane]

"The Last Jedi" contained a radical feminist trope of elevating women specifically by denigrating men. The recent Disney version of "A Wrinkle in Time" did the same thing--more clearly because there is the book and an earlier movie to compare it to.

So let me use "A Wrinkle in Time" to illustrate what I mean. The trope is: "All men must be either feckless or villainous." In the novel "A Wrinkle in Time," there were three prominent male characters.

Charles Wallace. Novel: A brilliant telepath who was necessary for the mission because of his telepathic link to his missing father and his own relationship with Mrs Whatsit. Disney movie: Talkative little jerk with no purpose in the plot whatsoever.

Calvin O'Keefe. Novel: Brave, resilient, folk-wise, solid backup to the lead character Meg. He was the "Samwise Gangee" to Meg's "Frodo." Disney movie: "Damsel in distress."

Mr Murry. Novel: A government scientist who drew the short straw and accidentally disappeared in an experiment gone wrong. Disney movie: He deliberately runs off on his own arrogant quest, forgetting about his family, until he gets captured.

That's also a pattern of Ophrah Winfrey productions. There are never any good males in an Oprah Winfrey production.

There are some studies indicating that males actually don't care that much about the sex of their heroes...but women do.

In one study, males and females were given Star Wars universe stories in which Jedi and Sith characters appeared as both males and females.

Males tended to identify with the Jedi characters (the "good guys") regardless of sex more than they identified with the Sith (the "bad guy") characters.

Women, OTOH, tended to identify with the female characters whether they were Jedi or Sith.

I suppose I didn't look that far into it.

 

[Kaon]

That sounds pretty flimsy. There were also songs protesting going to Iraq. And how is Star Wars and Star Trek pro-Universal Healthcare?



Social Conditioning. It's a neat idea, but it's not quite as effective as we seem to think it is.



So, why are there different political persuasions? Why do people's political beliefs change over time and with age? How do we know that these views are the result of entertainment consumption and not that entertainment is not a reflection of society?

You will have to figure the things out for yourself.

 

[Fantine]

The right doesn't seem to have a sense of humor. There are no right-wing late night talk show hosts. Or SNL not ready for prime time players (I think Dennis Miller might have been). Or Michael Moores.

I realize that at the moment Democrats have 99% of the material--perhaps more.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Music artists sang about Bombs over Baghdad before we went to war, movies constantly had war games with the middle east, and even within our own nation as a premise. Universal healthcare has been a thing in movies since Star Wars and Star Trek.

It is called Predictive Programming. You think it is you who is the one with choice, when you have been conditioned to accept what has been given to you under the illusion of choice.

People consume entertainment and their subliminals, and execute their freedom of choice to adhere to a paradigm already fashioned for them. Politicians are entertainment now; they are constantly bought and sold under the romanticism of Hollywood. The behavior of politicians have been fashioned by entertainment.

If that is the case, where's my lightsaber?

 

[Kaon]

If that is the case, where's my lightsaber?

Heh...

Laser weapons exist. They just aren't marketed to the public.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Heh...

Laser weapons exist. They just aren't marketed to the public.

Well, that's a Second Amendment issue right there... how am I supposed to protect myself from the Sith?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Except they only have the power to influence. Politicians have the power to make and change laws, create policy, wage wars...

Politics follows culture. Changes in the culture are always reflected sooner or later in changes to political policy.

 

[Kaon]

Well, that's a Second Amendment issue right there... how am I supposed to protect myself from the Sith?

lawl, Cheney hasn't been seen in almost a decade.

As people say, you can't protect yourself from nooks - or do you expect to have a nook in your arsenal?

 

[keith99]

"The Last Jedi" contained a radical feminist trope of elevating women specifically by denigrating men. The recent Disney version of "A Wrinkle in Time" did the same thing--more clearly because there is the book and an earlier movie to compare it to.

So let me use "A Wrinkle in Time" to illustrate what I mean. The trope is: "All men must be either feckless or villainous." In the novel "A Wrinkle in Time," there were three prominent male characters.

Charles Wallace. Novel: A brilliant telepath who was necessary for the mission because of his telepathic link to his missing father and his own relationship with Mrs Whatsit. Disney movie: Talkative little jerk with no purpose in the plot whatsoever.

Calvin O'Keefe. Novel: Brave, resilient, folk-wise, solid backup to the lead character Meg. He was the "Samwise Gangee" to Meg's "Frodo." Disney movie: "Damsel in distress."

Mr Murry. Novel: A government scientist who drew the short straw and accidentally disappeared in an experiment gone wrong. Disney movie: He deliberately runs off on his own arrogant quest, forgetting about his family, until he gets captured.

That's also a pattern of Ophrah Winfrey productions. There are never any good males in an Oprah Winfrey production.

I never saw the film because I knew enough from the previews to know the book was butchered. Between the "Be a warrior" line which runs contrary to the book and changing the 3 little old ladies (or so they seem) into fashionistas I knew not throwing up would be a challenge.

Might I mention a few of the very positive features of the book and ask if they were reflected at all in the film?

Both Calvin and Meg would have been social outcasts, in large part because they had brains. The only reason Calvin is spared that fate is because he is tall, very tall, as in tall enough that with average or even below average coordination he is a star basketball player.

Charles Wallace Murry is beyond smart. So smart that he realizes even before he is school age that he had better hide it or become more of an outcast than he already is.

Mrs. Murry manages to be a successful research scientist and to pursue those traditional female areas that she likes.

So we have a situation where all the heros are geeks. One where what appear to be 3 rather traditional old ladies are in fact rather powerful beings.

Oops I almost forgot to ask is Meg treated badly by school administrators? That is a central part of the book.

As I see it the book was pretty much a classic liberal story. So any changes would not be making things more liberal, but forcing it into a neo-lib version that it seems is also man hating.

In the end of the book the kids have saved our world from what is truly a fate worse than destruction. What has befallen worlds that have fallen is to become worlds of near perfect order and conformity. Sort of the stepford everyone. But in large part because of his arrogance Charles Wallace did not make it back. One could even argue it was because of a sort of macho mindset. Meg is then the one to save him, but NOT by being a better than male macho woman, but because of her empathy and love for her brother.

So I ask did any of the charm of the book remain? Was there any hope given that a girl or woman could do important things by some means other than being more of a man than the men? Did any of the shy geeky types might be the ones to save us remain?

A wrinkle in Time is considered a very important work because it was the first young adult story with a female protagonist that was a commercial success. It is sad that it seems that story has been butchered on the altar of man hating neo liberalism.

​

 

[RDKirk]

Both Calvin and Meg would have been social outcasts, in large part because they had brains. The only reason Calvin is spared that fate is because he is tall, very tall, as in tall enough that with average or even below average coordination he is a star basketball player.​

Calvin is nothing but a damsel in distress in this movie. His character is not fleshed out any more than that. Brains? No sign of brains, no sign of courage. The scene where he defends Meg against two other boys? Not in the movie. The scene where he talks her down from her rage? Not in the movie. In fact, when they're threatened in the movie Calvin outruns Meg to escape.

Charles Wallace Murry is beyond smart. So smart that he realizes even before he is school age that he had better hide it or become more of an outcast than he already is.

I'm not so sure in the novel that Charles Wallace understands that so maturely. He's brilliant, but not that mature about other people or he wouldn't have been susceptible to the machinations of the Red Eyed Man (who was also significantly reduced in importance in the movie).

My impression is that Charles Wallace simply read enough of the minds of other people to realize they didn't have any interest in his welfare or Meg's, so he had no interest in them. But he read something different in Calvin, so he spoke to Calvin.

That was another point lost in the movie. Calvin was taken into the Murry family because Charles Wallace would speak to him, and Mrs Murry wanted to understand what could make her son open up to that one boy.

In the movie, Calvin's only role was to moon for Meg and tell her that he liked her hair. Now, understand that for black women hair is an existential issue and for the movie to depict Calvin saying, "I like your hair" is a plot device intended to telegraph, "This is a nice person." There is nothing more the movie has to say about Calvin.

Mrs. Murry manages to be a successful research scientist and to pursue those traditional female areas that she likes.

So we have a situation where all the heros are geeks. One where what appear to be 3 rather traditional old ladies are in fact rather powerful beings.

The movie didn't provide a concept of who the three "witches" were. You never learn in the movie that they are actually stars who sacrificed their light in combat with the Darkness. To me, at least, the knowledge of their sacrifice was poignant and illustrative of the universal all-inclusiveness of the battle.

The movie didn't really define Meg as a geek/nerd herself. Just everyone's victim.

Oops I almost forgot to ask is Meg treated badly by school administrators? That is a central part of the book.

Well, yes, because being oppressed by the patriarchy goes along with the ideology. A big thing about the novel is that Meg causes a lot of her own day-to-day problems because of her own rage. In the movie, she's just being bullied. It would not fit the ideology to have any of Meg's problems be self-imposed--she had to be the classic victim.

Meg is then the one to save him, but NOT by being a better than male macho woman, but because of her empathy and love for her brother.

In the novel, Meg reaches the IT-enthralled Charles Wallace by reminding him, "I love you, Charles Wallace." In the movie, Meg reaches Charles Wallace by reminding him, "You love me, Charles Wallace."

The movie spent practically no time with Camazotz. One did not understand from the movie that Camazotz was an entire world given over to the darkness of IT, or understand the depths of that darkness, nor did one understand from the movie how desperate the kids' mission was.

There was not in the movie that excruciating sequence of Charles Wallace being seduced into accepting IT by the Red-Eyed Man. It was given short-shift, only a couple of lines.

A Wrinkle in Time is considered a very important work because it was the first young adult story with a female protagonist that was a commercial success. It is sad that it seems that story has been butchered on the altar of man hating neo liberalism.

​

I think Nancy Drew filled that bill earlier. But obviously this was an important work that emphasized a teen female protagonist that recognized immediately and has been for 50 years. I read it as a young teen-aged boy and got it.

 

[keith99]

I think Nancy Drew filled that bill earlier. But obviously this was an important work that emphasized a teen female protagonist that recognized immediately and has been for 50 years. I read it as a young teen-aged boy and got it.​

Oops, I left out Science Fiction/fantasy in the description.

I'm vaguely remembering that in the previews Calvin was standing next to Meg and they seemed to be the same height. Am I correct in that?

EDIT: Also if I recall correctly there is an element of forgiveness toward her principal. Is that also gone or twisted? Note that forgiveness is at the least compatible with traditional liberal thought and perhaps even a bit more common among classic liberals than conservatives, especially when it comes to christians​

 

[RDKirk]

Oops, I left out Science Fiction/fantasy in the description.

I'm vaguely remembering that in the previews Calvin was standing next to Meg and they seemed to be the same height. Am I correct in that?

EDIT: Also if I recall correctly there is an element of forgiveness toward her principal. Is that also gone or twisted? Note that forgiveness is at the least compatible with traditional liberal thought and perhaps even a bit more common among classic liberals than conservatives, especially when it comes to christians​

No. But they did spend quite a bit of time with Mr Murry begging forgiveness of Meg and then his wife. This wasn't necessary in the novel because his disappearance wasn't his fault--he had drawn the short straw in a failed government experiment. They made it his personal fault in the movie because, well, he's a male so of course he was in the wrong.

And they left out one of my favorite parts in the novel, where Calvin tells Meg that people in town said Mr Murry had left his mother for another woman, "...but when I met your mother, I knew that was wrong."

 

[keith99]

No. But they did spend quite a bit of time with Mr Murry begging forgiveness of Meg and then his wife. This wasn't necessary in the novel because his disappearance wasn't his fault--he had drawn the short straw in a failed government experiment. They made it his personal fault in the movie because, well, he's a male so of course he was in the wrong.

And they left out one of my favorite parts in the novel, where Calvin tells Meg that people in town said Mr Murry had left his mother for another woman, "...but when I met your mother, I knew that was wrong."

I remembered something else. A significant part of how Meg contributed to her problems with authority figures was that she very actively disputed that lie and anything like it. She knew that her father had not left them and that either he was unable to return or that he could not abandon some important task.

 

[RDKirk]

I remembered something else. A significant part of how Meg contributed to her problems with authority figures was that she very actively disputed that lie and anything like it. She knew that her father had not left them and that either he was unable to return or that he could not abandon some important task.

Yes, that was true. From Meg's point of view, everyone believed her father had "run off" from her mother. Part of the reason she was able to accept Calvin's friendship was that he told her he didn't believe it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Why didn't the Right try to even the chances in the Entertainment culture war a bit?

You have the towering cultural exemplar of Ted Nugent. Isn't that enough for you?