Current Affairs What is Woke ?

[bluestevon]

In this era of remakes and updates, I think it's pretty important for black actors, in particular, to at least be considered for traditionally white roles. The vast majority of old books, comics, TV shows, films etc. centred around white leads and heroes which would leave a pretty limited menu of opportunities for black actors if studios were to stick rigidly to the source material for a remake. I personally couldn't be arsed if they recast Bond or Batman or whatever as black, these characters have been overhauled and reinvented hundreds of times by now.

However, I have to admit I largely hate modern screenwriting. When I'm watching a film made in the last ten years, it often feels like there is a disproportional emphasis on message over story. I have no problem with messaging (all the great films are flush with it) but when a message is hammered home to the detriment of character development, good dialogue, narrative tension, story progression etc. it just leaves me feeling flat. A few lads on here will put that down to "wokeness", but I think there is just a prevalence of bad film-making that's roughly in line with the regression I see in almost every other form of artistic endeavour. Style over substance and almost completely risk-averse. Maybe I'm just getting to the "it was better in my day" stage of my life

Pretty much agree with most of this, in genres were they constantly overhaul - such as comic book adaptations certainly - nick fury ain't black in the original comics but it works, 007, ere casting or rewriting society from historical fiction never imo ends well, it looks forced in and lazy, virtue signalling at its worst.

The part about most of the above centering around white characters is just how it is though, and the problem is more what you later allude to, a reliance on pre existing material rather than modern or creating something new, and large parts of when the new stuff is done it's done in a way that does put style over substance (be that over reliance on SFX, or by filling it with modern tropes that tick all the current check boxes) ignoring that without character, plot and well written dialogue you creste nothing of real worth.
Is it all down to wokeness - whatever the word truly means anyway, obviously not, but it's an easily identifiable marker of a lot of the current trash being churned out so people latch onto that element - and yes at times it's overdone on the critics part.

Messaging in a movie as you again say is perfectly fine - IF done well. Just take people who support more acceptance for trans people - or portrayed the issues faced, I'd wager two movies that did the most to convince people to look seriously at the issue were Boys don't cry and Dallas Buyers Club, moreso than constantly banging on about pronoun use in a vacuous show like the latest doctor who (Dog Day Afternoon was a huge forerunner of the good ways to do this if you've ever seen it).

Do t think it is a case of the old line of things we're better in our day, it's a genuine regression of the quality of people now involved in the film/TV industry. Social Media killing the 'star appeal' also detracts as let's face it we now see 24/7 that most actors are utter clueless bells

 

[wandyr79]

My advice is to watch a film or TV show as if it is not reality.

Imagine a world where there are are parallel universes, where up can be down, the Golden Gate Bridge can be Blue, British kings can be black, Everton have won the league 5 seasons in a row.

For me, it is fun not to be too serious about storytelling. As mentioned if it is a true biopic then it would be wrong but if we are talking about pure fiction then let us have some fun with it.

King Edward VI is a black disabled adult in this parallel universe, again, have some fun with it and don't take it as a serious piece of art.

 

[bluestevon]

professor Xavier played Othello no less.

Going g back 30+ years ago I saw Hamlet played by a lead cast of black actors in Stratford, also saw a reworking of Macbeth set in Nazi Germany, in the same place. The second one was stupefyingly terrible the first kinda worked ok.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Artistic endeavour, there are no guarantees. Well, except the tom hiddlestons and lawrence fox's of this world who are always quite quite awful.

 

[Prevenger17]

King Edward VI is a black disabled adult in this parallel universe, again, have some fun with it and don't take it as a serious piece of art.

Tarantino killed off Hitler. That's the great thing about films, the possibilities are theoretically limitless

 

[bluestevon]

My advice is to watch a film or TV show as if it is not reality.

Imagine a world where there are are parallel universes, where up can be down, the Golden Gate Bridge can be Blue, British kings can be black, Everton have won the league 5 seasons in a row.

For me, it is fun not to be too serious about storytelling. As mentioned if it is a true biopic then it would be wrong but if we are talking about pure fiction then let us have some fun with it.

King Edward VI is a black disabled adult in this parallel universe, again, have some fun with it and don't take it as a serious piece of art.

Thing is mate, yes it's not reality, but for the medium to work it has to pull you into it or else by and large it has failed in it's entire purpose.

Outside of say action pics (but the best I still have this) most movie genres require you to care about the characters and believe in them as 'real' even though you know they're not, that's what immersion is all about, if you have to force yourself into going into watching something with the forethought of this is not real then the immersion aspect has already gone, you no longer particularly care about any character and the movies failed the basic movie premise.

Why did Die Hard become an action movie Classic - the effects are better in other movies for sure, because the movie got you caring about McCain and him getting home for Christmas.

 

[bluestevon]

Tarantino killed off Hitler. That's the great thing about films, the possibilities are theoretically limitless

Yeah but Tarantino blatantly sets out in his style of OTT that there's no pretense about it being anything to do with history mate.

Oh good god, just remembered the dirty dozen when on their super secret mission they bring a black guy along and wrap him in bandages as a burn victim to disguise him....

 

[LostLegend]

Being honest, I think the casting of sexy Hollywood types in the role of dog-ugly historical characters is more egregious.

Here’s Chris Hemsworth playing the role of Owen Chase in the movie ‘In the Heart of the Sea’ which is true story of the sinking of the whaling ship ‘The Essex’ after being rammed by a whale (an event said to have influenced the writing of ‘Moby Dick’)

And here’s a picture of the actual Owen Chase:

WOKE nonsense!

 

[Alan Whittle]

I think that’s the link between their fair hair and white complexion…. Pale-ontology

Go home. Now.

 

[d34noj]

I think that’s the link between their fair hair and white complexion…. Pale-ontology

@GrandOldTeam

Is there a way of setting fire to a thread on an internet forum?

 

[wandyr79]

Thing is mate, yes it's not reality, but for the medium to work it has to pull you into it or else by and large it has failed in it's entire purpose.

Outside of say action pics (but the best I still have this) most movie genres require you to care about the characters and believe in them as 'real' even though you know they're not, that's what immersion is all about, if you have to force yourself into going into watching something with the forethought of this is not real then the immersion aspect has already gone, you no longer particularly care about any character and the movies failed the basic movie premise.

Why did Die Hard become an action movie Classic - the effects are better in other movies for sure, because the movie got you caring about McCain and him getting home for Christmas.

If you watch a film and sit there criticising the accuracy of the historical aspect, then fair enough. I have done that on occasion, or criticised a film for poor dialogue, or not being like the book (what my own perception of the book was) they are all valid reason to critique a film. That kind of thing I enjoy, the playing with reality.

At the end of Bernard Cornwell's books there is a historical note, where he explains what was real and/or where that information came from and the validity of it. I am always a bit upset when a part I really like is not real but my mind straight away goes 'Yeah, but how cool would it have been if it really did happen' and that cheers me up

General film criticising is normal but it has crept into this thread that the colour of skin of a character being played in a fictional story is important, when it really isn't and it is not hard, if played well, to care about that character.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Being honest, I think the casting of sexy Hollywood types in the role of dog-ugly historical characters is more egregious.

Here’s Chris Hemsworth playing the role of Owen Chase in the movie ‘In the Heart of the Sea’ which is true story of the sinking of the whaling ship ‘The Essex’ after being rammed by a whale (an event said to have influenced the writing of ‘Moby [Poor language removed]’)

And here’s a picture of the actual Owen Chase:

WOKE nonsense!

Turns out a whaling life puts years on you, until it doesn't.

 

[bluestevon]

If you watch a film and sit there criticising the accuracy of the historical aspect, then fair enough. I have done that on occasion, or criticised a film for poor dialogue, or not being like the book (what my own perception of the book was) they are all valid reason to critique a film. That kind of thing I enjoy, the playing with reality.

At the end of Bernard Cornwell's books there is a historical note, where he explains what was real and/or where that information came from and the validity of it. I am always a bit upset when a part I really like is not real but my mind straight away goes 'Yeah, but how cool would it have been if it really did happen' and that cheers me up

General film criticising is normal but it has crept into this thread that the colour of skin of a character being played in a fictional story is important, when it really isn't and it is not hard, if played well, to care about that character.

That's the trope sci fi can excel in or alternate reality, can't remember the name of it but Rutger Hauer was ina fantastic movie set in I think the 80s with the alternate reality being the Germans won.

Similarly how many people watch Alien and realise that the female Lambert character is actually a post op trans, I'm guessing hardly anybody.

 

[d34noj]

If you watch a film and sit there criticising the accuracy of the historical aspect, then fair enough. I have done that on occasion, or criticised a film for poor dialogue, or not being like the book (what my own perception of the book was) they are all valid reason to critique a film. That kind of thing I enjoy, the playing with reality.

At the end of Bernard Cornwell's books there is a historical note, where he explains what was real and/or where that information came from and the validity of it. I am always a bit upset when a part I really like is not real but my mind straight away goes 'Yeah, but how cool would it have been if it really did happen' and that cheers me up

General film criticising is normal but it has crept into this thread that the colour of skin of a character being played in a fictional story is important, when it really isn't and it is not hard, if played well, to care about that character.

To be fair, if you're a black woman with a shaved head - actress or not, you've got about a 40% chance of being cast as a detective in an ITV crime drama.

 

[LostLegend]

Conspiracy theory time!

On the subject of the old "Go woke, Go broke" nonsense, I recently received a breakdown of some royalties I am owed for music I've put out earlier this year (no bragging, it's barely into 3 figures ) and I've been trying to get my head around advertising revenue breakdowns via youtube and song licensing revenue via Instagram and TikTok.
It's all very complicated, especially how certain pieces of media can get caught up in the mysterious algorithm and become "viral" overnight.

One thing I've found is that the algorithm is based upon current trends and content can move up or down the pecking order based on views and more importantly interactions.

This is the important bit.
The algorithm does not differentiate between positive and negative interactions. So, for example a Youtube video that gets 100,000 likes and loads of positive comments will get the same boost in the algorithm as one that gets 100,000 dislikes and lots of negative comments. An interaction is an interaction regardless.

I'm beginning to strongly suspect that a lot of big companies are putting gender non-conforming people and queer people front and center of their advertising campaigns, not because they are trying to be liberal or progressive, but because they are intentionally rage-baiting conservatives.

Nothing... NOTHING will get your new advert shooting to the top of the viral algorithm faster than 1 million angry conservatives 'smashing' that dislike button and screeching "I'm never buying your product again! Go WOKE Go BROKE!" into the comment section, before sending the link to all their friends "LOOK AT THIS BLACK MAN PRETENDING TO BE A WHITE WOMAN ON THE NEW NIKE ADVERT, WE ARE BEING REPLACED" etc. etc.

So in short, if you see something on social media or on youtube that angers you, ignore it or block the account. Jumping into the comments to give the creator a piece of your mind is giving them the exact boost in the algorithm they were looking for in the first place.