Post: #76

(10-21-2015 03:36 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  You shouldn't be surprised. Hollywood is in the business of making money. Strong female leads appeals to current society HENCE it makes money.

I've studied and been involved in film for a while. If you can be subversive with it - A solid red pill film would annihilate the box office.

Put it this way:

If you try to game a girl and be blatant about what you're doing - She will shut you down faster than Usain Bolt.

If you game a girl correctly she will tell her friends about this guy she met. She'll use the words 'spark' 'connection' 'chemistry'.

IMO film is the same. If you can pull it off the audience will be clueless. It will appeal to their biology. They won't know why. They'll just like it.

That's not true. Hollywood would make more money when doing movies that are more Red Pill and less feminist. This propaganda actually costs them money, but they do it nonetheless. Hollywood's first rule of business is to produce propaganda while not going completely broke. They embed propaganda points in almost every TV series and big movie.

I could literally give you a list of all the points in each TV series and movie. Most of them even destroy the plot, are illogical, are stupid and sometimes even cost millions in lost revenue. The strong super-woman meme does not appeal to most of us - it does not even appeal to women on an instinctive level. It's just the SJW theme du jour.

Post: #77

(10-21-2015 12:26 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(10-20-2015 06:05 PM)eljeffster Wrote:  First, the original Star Wars had a good character in Lando, not because he was black, but because the actor was right for that role.

As someone who was there at the time, 'Star Wars' was heavily-criticised for lacking any visible actors of colour. Given that Lucas was a boomer, and the voice casting of James Earl Jones, I suspect it wasn't a racist choice, but the fact the film was shot in England).

Lando was designed to be exactly what he is: a shield against criticism. PC was beginning in Hollywood in the early 80's as the Boomers took power, and even at 9, I knew what tokenism was - mainly because I read Mad Magazine religiously.

That being said, when I was a kid, I could only afford three Star Wars figures in the couple of years between when I was into it and then felt too old for it: Han in his Hoth Snow Gear, Chewbacca and Lando. They were the three coolest characters.

As for complaining about the 'strong female character': it's on the Star Wars box. Leia is pure second-wave feminism, as is Marion in Spielberg and Lucas's 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.

I'll concede your analysis of Lando, but I still liked everything they scripted for him, especially the space battle at Endor.

I am sticking to my predictions about the new character being a pansy, breathing heavy and sweating all over the previews in a panic.

Post: #78

(10-21-2015 04:00 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  That's not true. Hollywood would make more money when doing movies that are more Red Pill and less feminist. This propaganda actually costs them money, but they do it nonetheless. Hollywood's first rule of business is to produce propaganda while not going completely broke. They embed propaganda points in almost every TV series and big movie.

I am gonna explain why this is absolutely incorrect.

Women are the primary viewers of TV and are taking over the theater audience. Please look up statistics on network as well as premium cable viewership. Remember, sports viewership is heavily male. If you remove the NFL audience from a network, the gender split favors women even more. Hollywood's first rule of business is to MAKE MONEY. Movies and TV shows with strong female characters cost less and bring in great profits. All of the "propaganda" that you find is there to cater to the large demographic. That demographic is the increasing SJW graduates from our college bubble. You may think that they are shoving agendas down our throat, but they are actually taking already popular views in the left and profiting from them.

With netflix, amazon, hulu and other streamers the business model has changed. Ratings no longer matter for the streamers and for premium cable like hbo/starz/showtimes. Since its a subscription model, all they care about is how many subscribers they have and not how many times their show has been viewed. What they are now looking at is how much "buzz" the show creates. They look at social media and other web analytics to determine if the show has created enough buzz for launch which will reel in subscribers. A great way of creating buzz is to tackle provocative issues, piss off an already invested audience, include controversial scenes and finally: embrace whatever SJW agenda is hot right now so that all the online media portals can share your new show which in turn will bring in more subscribers. If you add a tranny character, buzzfeed will write 50 articles, huffinton post will have it in their front page. Changing the race of a character has the same effect. A lot of the articles online such as "Hollywood's defiant women writers" are actually purchased by networks and studios before hand so that the useful idiots can get riled up and bombard their friends social media account once the show is launched.

And lastly, the new generation of men is more into videogames than tv/film which explains gamergate. TV viewership is starting too look like the polar opposite of video games.

Quote:I could literally give you a list of all the points in each TV series and movie. Most of them even destroy the plot, are illogical, are stupid and sometimes even cost millions in lost revenue. The strong super-woman meme does not appeal to most of us - it does not even appeal to women on an instinctive level. It's just the SJW theme du jour.

Again, those plot points are illogical to you and not to the targeted demographic. There are like 100 "real wife" shows out there, are they logical to you? If you knew how cheap they are to make and how much money they bring in, you wouldn't be saying they "cost millions." The SJW crap is the same.
The networks/studios are walking a fine line between adding a new demographic while not turning away the original. They have gotten very good at doing this and we have to say that guys like you and me are currently in the minority.

Fortunately, I am seeing a change and I am optimistic that people are waking up and seeing through the blatant attempt at embracing social justice causes for the sake easy profit.

Post: #79

(10-21-2015 11:26 AM)eljeffster Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 12:26 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(10-20-2015 06:05 PM)eljeffster Wrote:  First, the original Star Wars had a good character in Lando, not because he was black, but because the actor was right for that role.

As someone who was there at the time, 'Star Wars' was heavily-criticised for lacking any visible actors of colour. Given that Lucas was a boomer, and the voice casting of James Earl Jones, I suspect it wasn't a racist choice, but the fact the film was shot in England).

Lando was designed to be exactly what he is: a shield against criticism. PC was beginning in Hollywood in the early 80's as the Boomers took power, and even at 9, I knew what tokenism was - mainly because I read Mad Magazine religiously.

That being said, when I was a kid, I could only afford three Star Wars figures in the couple of years between when I was into it and then felt too old for it: Han in his Hoth Snow Gear, Chewbacca and Lando. They were the three coolest characters.

As for complaining about the 'strong female character': it's on the Star Wars box. Leia is pure second-wave feminism, as is Marion in Spielberg and Lucas's 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.

I'll concede your analysis of Lando, but I still liked everything they scripted for him, especially the space battle at Endor.

I am sticking to my predictions about the new character being a pansy, breathing heavy and sweating all over the previews in a panic.

Are you saying that he's going to be a bumbling jar jar binks? That would be a racism backlash of epic proportions if he's running around cowering and yelling "oh lawd, save me ms. Rey!"

Anyway, the best casting of a strong black role without it being 'in your face' but also being 'in your face' is in "night of the living dead" One black guy locked in a house with a bunch of hysterical white people. Slapping sense into silly bitches...combined with the ending. Subtle trolling by director George Romero

Post: #80

Saw Mad Max Fury Road last night on torrent. It was entertaining. It was okay. It wasn't the piece of shit I thought it might be.

But it sure as hell doesn't warrant a 97% rating on RottenTomatoes. The fact it got such an overwhelmingly positive response shows the state of the movie industry right now.

Post: #81

(10-21-2015 12:51 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Anyway, the best casting of a strong black role without it being 'in your face' but also being 'in your face' is in "night of the living dead" One black guy locked in a house with a bunch of hysterical white people. Slapping sense into silly bitches...combined with the ending. Subtle trolling by director George Romero

Yeah, if you go back and read the NOTLD interviews at the time, they give the usual statement White Subversives give when making a statement about race - pretending they're not making one so they're not singled out for retribution from either side. The character 'could have been' white, but he 'just happened' to be the best actor for the role.

If you watch the press kit for the incredibly-subversive 'The Last Of Us' - gamers single out 'Gone Home' as propaganda but the subversive 'The Last Of Us' is the one that will subtly effect lasting change - Ellie could have been a boy, but 'just happened' to be a girl, instead of being designed to be a lesbian character introduced by stealth.

If it's not a subversive statement, they wouldn't need to hide it or justify it. When asked why the hero is black, you'd say "Because the Hero is black".

Romero is a child of the 60's, and this is what he does. I watched his 1981 film 'Knightriders' recently. It's about a medieval travelling fair that jousts on motorbikes and with the King Arthur figure trying to hold on to spiritual purity.

Not 10 minutes in, there's crazy motorbike stunts, men getting injured, and a girl is watching in awe. When one Knight wins the bout, the helmet is removed, and... the winning Knight is a woman... cue girl watching: "Far out!" The audience learns that girls can do anything! ™, and that if they compete with men, they'll be superior.

About an hour in, one character asks another "are you Gay?" By the end of the film he's in a monogamous relationship with another character, and the audience learns that gays are just like you and me ™. This was incredibly-subversive for the time.

On the plus side, Ed Harris carries the entire movie with his intensity. I liked the theme of chasing spiritual purity and integrity in a changing world. I wonder what Romero would think if he realised the world the Boomers created now lacked both.

As a bonus for Babylon 5 fans, Patricia Tallman's tits rock. I don't think there's one scene where she isn't on high beam, and it made me miss just how sexually-liberated that time was.



Note that by the end of the 80's, Romero writes a new version of Night Of The Living Dead. The PC Wars of 80's Hollywood are one, so the subversion is complete: Barbara is now the Ripley-style over-competent action hero. Tallman plays the part, and, of course, they hack off all her hair, turning her into a teenage boy.

Post: #82

(10-21-2015 12:51 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Are you saying that he's going to be a bumbling jar jar binks? That would be a racism backlash of epic proportions if he's running around cowering and yelling "oh lawd, save me ms. Rey!"

That would literally be the funniest movie I've ever seen. And, after he says something, all of the other characters look at each other wondering if he's kidding.

Post: #83

(10-01-2015 10:28 PM)Legendver2 Wrote:  I get the hesitation in regards to this movie due to them putting the female main character front and center in the poster, but really guys? Movie isn't even out yet and everyone's already acting like they've seen the whole movie sh*tting on it like a Dubai sponsor sh*tting on a $10 instagram-whore. Why don't we wait until the movie comes out and some of us are actually brave enough to watch this supposedly PC-extravaganza before we decide if it's as bad as everyone here makes it out to be. I mean, couple months ago the same thing was happening in the Mad Max thread, only for some to come back here after it released saying it wasn't THAT bad. Let's not judge a movie by it's poster now.

On another note, imo, I highly suspect this isn't really targeted at young boys, but more of the crowd who grew up with Star Wars, was disappointed at the prequel trilogy, and making this as the second coming of the first trilogy, and aiming more towards the nostalgia of Star Wars. For sure, those audience will indeed bring their kids (the young boys) to watch it to create a new gen of fans. But I think the primary target is the nostalgic OG fans.

Agree 100%

You put a white woman and a black man in leading roles and all of a sudden you have people screaming "white genocide!". Give me a fucking break. Not everything is an attempt by the left to shove their ideology down your throats. I appreciate that leftists are more likely to cast women and minorities but that does not mean this movie is going to be a Marxist propaganda piece. Maybe, just maybe it's going to be another Star Wars movie that plays on the same themes that hundreds of other movies have played on and just so happens to star a white girl and a black guy.

Post: #84

(09-08-2015 06:58 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 07:40 AM)UroboricForms Wrote:  I recently re-watched Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, only the second time I've seen it in about a decade. My god, could they have been any more ham-fisted with the whole Jedi/Sith modern political parallels? Every second lightsaber swing it seemed Ewan Mcgregor was yelling about "democracy!!!" or something to Hayden Christensen's equally ham-fisted angsty face.

If you think about it Star wars is really about communism vs fascism. The empire are fascists and the "rebels" are Che Guevara type revolutionaries. The Jedi are ideal space communists..ideologues who forego earthly desires for ideological purity and communal sacrifice.

The republic fell because it became too tainted with corrupt capitalists which is why the fascists were able to take over. The noble jedi communists and their comrades swoop in at the end to save the galaxy.

George Lucas is a communist.

So Buddhists are communists then correct? You're reading too much into it. They control their emotions to become guardian protectors and to deal with the burdens of it much like Buddhist philosophy.

If they were truly communists they wouldn't have even allowed the "capitalists" to come to power or exist like all communist ideologies which seek to completely wipe out the bourgeois class. Communism is an ideology based on hate turning into shared misery not protection or control of emotions.

I would not call them Che Guevera type revolutionaries(as Che's revolutionaries weren't very kind to the people they "liberated" and he was a documented racist). They are more like the French Revolutionaries in Occupied France.

Also one last thing the Republic fell due to excessive bureaucracy and politicians whom wanted more personal power much like the ACTUAL ROMAN REPUBLIC the Old Republic was based on(see the correlation between Pompeii the Great and Dooku with Palpatine and Caesar though they changed it up a bit to show that relationship as master and student in league with each other rather than former friends turned enemies). The dialogues used by Dooku and Palpatine in their act was essentially the same arguments that Pompeii and Caesar used to justify their factions ideas.

Lucas takes from various parts of history and rearranging them into a story don't think of it was a political narrative. Even though there were some themes in there.

Post: #85

One thing I wonder with this diversity thing in media, which of course is totally innocent.

Why don't we see other interracial couple pairings? The most representative would be white guy with asian girl. And why is it always black guy white girl, but not white guy with some fine Rihanna black girl?

Why don't we have an Asian girl be the lead? Hell, why not a black girl? Arab? Indian?

Nope, white pretty girl with black guy.

Yes, it is pretty obvious what is going on.

Post: #86

Female Luke Skywalker

The protagonist is a woman, because of two contradictory urges in men today. On the one hand, we have a deep-seated need to see the Hero's Journey; on the other, we've been taught to feel guilty for 'oppressing' women by rescuing them (donchaknow Peach could have rescued herself and/or enjoys dragon penis). These two urges combine into Action Girl; to a certain extent Action Girl is the (normal and healthy) urge to find a woman who isn't incompetent at driving stick and wielding a firearm - but in film she's always cranked up to 11, and somehow able to beat men in martial arts battles.

Competent woman=good.
Action Girl=ridiculous.

Han Solo is Manly

Harrison Ford became the victim of his own success. Bruce Willis was acclaimed for the Die Hard films, and occasionally gets sucked into a terrible remake, but he still manages to make the occasional good movie like Looper. Harrison Ford is either Han Solo or Indiana Jones (in Ender's Game he merely phoned-in a performance that was the mix of the two). He doesn't care anymore. Also, the Millenium Falcon is the equivalent of a VW Microbus from the 60s. Yeah, it was cool back then, good times had by all - but it's not a classic Porsche. It's an old rust bucket, even back then it wasn't cool, Han Solo made it cool.

Happens to be Black

Benjamin Sisko was my favourite Starfleet Captain; the show Supernatural never shoved in any Social Justice (during the first 5 seasons, anyway) - I recall one episode in particular where they introduced a white male/black female couple. As soon as I saw them, I thought to myself, Great, we're going to have a narrative about rape and colonization or something - nope, they were just an interracial couple, it was her bitch lesbian friends (lesbian=witch) who murdered her.

I doubt we'll see any such decency from Disney. The black character will almost definitely be a token, and some pathetic narrative about racism will be brought up.

It looks like Star Wars

Damn them for reusing the classic music. This *looks* like Star Wars to me. I want to see it. I won't - but I want to. And most people don't have my self-control.

It's going to be mediocre, but it will do extremely well at the box office.

Post: #87

I wasn't entirely sure what this new Star Wars will be about, but upon seeing the new trailer with the female Luke Skywalker... I'm out.

Girls make horrible action stars, even scifi's suspension of disbeliefs can't save them.

Post: #88

(10-21-2015 04:00 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  That's not true. Hollywood would make more money when doing movies that are more Red Pill and less feminist. This propaganda actually costs them money, but they do it nonetheless. Hollywood's first rule of business is to produce propaganda while not going completely broke. They embed propaganda points in almost every TV series and big movie.

I could literally give you a list of all the points in each TV series and movie. Most of them even destroy the plot, are illogical, are stupid and sometimes even cost millions in lost revenue. The strong super-woman meme does not appeal to most of us - it does not even appeal to women on an instinctive level. It's just the SJW theme du jour.

I don't disagree but I think you're missing the point. Hollywood is in the business of making money and 'BLUE PILL THINKING' is what they think will generate the most viewers.

It's just like the common rule to 'watch what women do' rather than 'listen to what they say'.

Most of the world isn't red pill. Most of the entertainment industry 'LISTENS' to blue pill ideas and their practical brain feels that the idea is 'GREAT'.

My whole point is that red pill 'WOULD" generate much more money. The reality is that unfortunately a film maker would need to be very subversive to get it cleared for funding.

Take a relatively recent film 'DRIVE' with Ryan Gosling: Yes it has blue pill elements [Which would have helped in generating funding] but it's unconsciously a red pill film.

It's more or less a western set in modern day L.A. [The blue pill nature of a man taking care of a single mother aside] Gosling's character oozes elements of red pill and the women absolutely GOBBLED it up. It turned him into a sex symbol and I'm fairly confident most people in the movie industry wouldn't even be able to understand the real reason why.

Post: #89

Guys - guys - believe what you want - Hollywood is the plaything of super-powerful super-wealthy men. As a total it generates plenty of turnover, but little cash except for some exceptions.

As AnonymousBosch described part of the propaganda - do you really think that this transformation from long-haired beauty who needs rescue to short-haired superwoman Ripley, this de-sexualization of women, all of it "just happened"? Those points decrease the value of a movie despite making money. They could have made more money when sticking to traditional viewpoints, but they blew it (never mind the ratings - Poltergeist and Ghost were such successes because they showed family, traditional viewpoints, damsel in distress etc.). Whenever Hollywood pulls back a bit with the propaganda, then it succeeds a bit more. Guardians of the Galaxy was such a point - yes they had their fighting women, but they were still more or less attractive and they were alien/aided by technology.

Back in the day I have read reports and discussions by the global elite on whether to make the UK or Hollywood their main propaganda arm for the world. They chose Hollywood and so so it is. This global mental meat grinder will go marching on even if the turnover is falling and it costs them more money than they make. The world's trillionaires don't need to make a killing on Hollywood.

All they need is for you to believe what you need to believe, to be a well-indoctrinated servant, who thinks that feminism is great, that vaccines saved the world and we need much more of them, that supplements are useless, that women prefer the nice guy over the jerkish Alpha, that Global Warming is real, that blacks and minorities are superior to the currently dominant whites, that parents can die any minute now and children better not bond with them (Disney children's movies kill off parents/siblings almost in almost every one now), that black slavery was the only slavery, that the Holocoust was the only and most inhumane mass killing in history, that nature sucks and it's much better to live in cities (Agenda 21), that rich people suck and they are often lonely and depressed (and it's better to be poorer but happier - again Agenda 21 and UN austerity) etc.

If you don't know what the agenda is, who the elite is, what the main points are, then you are going to miss those embedded things. Also as AB said so - those anti-sexuality topics and the destruction of the male-female dichotomy don't make more money. They make actually for a less enjoyable movie, ultimately even for a less marketable movie - unless of course it's one where almost 100% of the viewership are women. And even then a movie like 50 Shades is pulling them in more than the new flic about a Superwoman. The reason is because women will remain women despite all the moxy and feminism - thy will react instinctively and will never find the feeble Beta more attractive than the over-self-confident, but charming Alpha - even if you balance their looks and height.

But hey - if you think it's only about money, then keep on believing it. The elite has stuff only for money - it's called banking, usury and Wallstreet. 50% of all prices are useless usury - you are paying it all. The few Hollywood bucks don't count.

Post: #90

(10-21-2015 08:29 PM)TheNookieMonster Wrote:  You put a white woman and a black man in leading roles and all of a sudden you have people screaming "white genocide!". Give me a fucking break. Not everything is an attempt by the left to shove their ideology down your throats. I appreciate that leftists are more likely to cast women and minorities but that does not mean this movie is going to be a Marxist propaganda piece. Maybe, just maybe it's going to be another Star Wars movie that plays on the same themes that hundreds of other movies have played on and just so happens to star a white girl and a black guy.

Jar Jar Abrams and Kathleen Kennedy picked the casting to explicitly further SJW goals. They're entirely open about it. In fact, they're essentially forcing gender and race-based quotas(as long as they're "positive"!) on the genre. You can't say that race is a major consideration and not mean that you're going to be doing some real discrimination. What if a director took a traditionally black franchise and decided that it needed more "diversity", promising to add more white characters because the movie doesn't have 'enough'? How would the black fan base react? On top of that, imagine if that same director stated that hiring more whites over blacks, especially in lead roles, was a major consideration in the future. And now imagine if that franchise made the leader of a Black Panther-esque group the villain and had the white lead end up with a fly black chick. See how this sounds? Because that's exactly what they did.

The problem honestly is not about one of the leads being black. It's about the fact that they shoehorned him in entirely because he's black and then laced the entire movie around racial ideology(the movie is about a multiracial cast defeating revanchist Nazis). If they had made a new movie with Lando or Mace Windu, or simply someone as badass and naturally in their element as those two were, nobody would have cared. But the directors and Disney have now completely politicized the franchise and people are pissed off because of it.

Quote:Despite characters like Leia, Calrissian, Windu -- and now Finn, Rey and Phasma -- Abrams and crew said the shepherds of the Star Wars franchise (a leader, after all, in the world of science fiction and fantasy) are striving to improve at every corner. Speaking about diverse casts, Abrams said: "It's a big consideration."

And though Abrams is passing off the director torch, Kennedy said Friday that his view on this will remain alive.

"There is every intention to carry on exactly what J. J. is talking about in all the Star Wars movies that we intend to make," she said.

http://www.cnet.com/news/director-j-j-ab...-universe/

Post: #91

90% chance the strong female character gets BBC. That's really going to get people flustered.

Post: #92

Sure, start with yourself!

Post: #93

(10-22-2015 05:53 AM)Stay Wrote:  90% chance the strong female character gets BBC. That's really going to get people flustered.

Canon Starwars always seemed like an oddly sexless fictional universe to me.
I mean there must be an incredible amount of human-alien sex going on, let alone alien-alien.
(Come on guys, we all know that it was a common occurrence for Lando and Han to be sitting in a seedy bar in the Outer Rim,
coming up with a plan to move in and swoop those smoking hot Twi'lek chicks.)

So black/white, that´s trivial, who gives a shit.
To really further the narrative, she should get some BAD (big alien dick).
That would teach us some tolerance.

Post: #94

In the first new star trek movie kirk banged that hot alien chick can't remember if she was yellow or green or blue. I'm all for it.

Post: #95

I think that quote might be false.

Post: #96

(10-22-2015 06:39 AM)Celtic_Austrian Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 05:53 AM)Stay Wrote:  90% chance the strong female character gets BBC. That's really going to get people flustered.

Canon Starwars always seemed like an oddly sexless fictional universe to me.
I mean there must be an incredible amount of human-alien sex going on, let alone alien-alien.
(Come on guys, we all know that it was a common occurrence for Lando and Han to be sitting in a seedy bar in the Outer Rim,
coming up with a plan to move in and swoop those smoking hot Twi'lek chicks.)

So black/white, that´s trivial, who gives a shit.
To really further the narrative, she should get some BAD (big alien dick).
That would teach us some tolerance.

Of course in an interstellar universe where you meet millions of species, then anyone human would be like your brother or sister. I agree with that, but this is more of a dick-move by the producers to change the feel of a series. It's as if you make a big-budget Blade IV and turn Blade black or do a remake of Training Day while casting a white bloke for Denzel - it would just feel stupid.

That said - personally I don't care much. I see the propaganda changes, but I simply don't give a damn. Humanity will survive and so will all the races. There will be plenty of folk left who like to fuck their own race. There is 7 billion of us and life is eternal. There are bigger problems out there.

Post: #97

(10-22-2015 07:11 AM)kbell Wrote:  I think that quote might be false.

Apparently it's legit, from a podcast interview.

Post: #98

Its good to be back here.

A point, that I'm surprised that nobody else has touched upon in this Star Wars drama is that the target audience itself wants a diverse cast.

Who's the target audience here? - Mostly white, suburban, middle-class to upper middle-class Millenials. This is the same population that supports Bernie and Hillary, that posts snarky memes criticizing Trump and Republicans, that vocally supports BLM unequivocally, that gets all of its news from Reddit. Disney knows that the old fanboys are not a significant demographic - meaning that they can't make billions of this movie.

This target audience wants to see female empowerment, racial diversity, gay characters, and every other liberal cause under the sun represented in this movie. I live with these types, and I've heard them complain about 80s movies because 'there aren't any Black/Asian/Latino people' or because 'that was a bit degrading to women'. In other words, they feel uncomfortable when they don't see this representation.

This movie is ultimately made to make them feel comfortable and create a new generation of Star Wars fanboys. A generation that will buy overpriced t-shirts, coffee mugs, and Halloween costumes.

On an unrelated note: Star Wars was cool when I was 5. Watching the Original Trilogy with my father in the tiny apartment we lived in then is the defining memory of my childhood. But it became dorky once I got to 15. Like AB mentioned in one of his earlier posts, its a series made for kids. Good story in the OT, but it has become too much like Magic the Gathering or Final Fantasy - hardcore fanboys have ruined it for all of us.

Its disgusting seeing any man over the age of 17 obsess over this film. How boring must your life be if you obsess over a film series that doesn't even have a compelling story?

Here's a quote from Sir Alec Guinness' Obituary in the Guardian:

Quote:Obi-Wan Kenobi gave Sir Alec a role in Star Wars, one of the most successful films of all time, but the veteran actor professed to despise all the attention it brought him. In later years, Sir Alec said he threw away all Star Wars fan mail unopened, despite the 2% cut of the director's gross royalties he received from the blockbuster film.

Post: #99

(10-22-2015 08:17 AM)xpatplayer Wrote:  Who's the target audience here? - Mostly white, suburban, middle-class to upper middle-class Millenials. This is the same population that supports Bernie and Hillary, that posts snarky memes criticizing Trump and Republicans, that vocally supports BLM unequivocally, that gets all of its news from Reddit. Disney knows that the old fanboys are not a significant demographic - meaning that they can't make billions of this movie.

This target audience wants to see female empowerment, racial diversity, gay characters, and every other liberal cause under the sun represented in this movie. I live with these types, and I've heard them complain about 80s movies because 'there aren't any Black/Asian/Latino people' or because 'that was a bit degrading to women'. In other words, they feel uncomfortable when they don't see this representation.

This movie is ultimately made to make them feel comfortable and create a new generation of Star Wars fanboys. A generation that will buy overpriced t-shirts, coffee mugs, and Halloween costumes.

There we go!

Hollywood is one of the most male dominated industries. Tech and maybe even construction might have more female leaders than hollywood. No i am not kidding. Its also the most capitalist/transnational place, this is the case now and will likely always be the case. This has had both negative and positive effects in the LA dating scene depending on where you fall in the pyramid.

The audience however has changed thanks to our education pyramid scheme. What we here see as blatant propaganda is adored by the majority of today's millennials. Hollywood isn't creating this, its already there and very popular, they are just cashing in big time.

The success of Divergent series, hungergames and others got the studio execs begging for similar projects. Hollywood no longer takes risks. The project has to already have a large following from a book, previous film series, videogame or a niche demographic large enough to cash in(Gay, Black, women or a demographic unrelated to race or gender). On the odd chance that its something original they better have a cool concept and a star studded cast attached prior to financing.
Just like there is a reason why they keep making 20 paranormal activities and 100 comic book films, there is a reason why are you seeing all this stuff "promoted."

Its a combination of relying on previous successful work(ie. Star Wars) and adding another demographic on top of it. With billions of dollars of our tax money going to "white privilege" studies, hollywood would be stupid if they didn't do this.

If you want to point fingers, look at the source.

Post: #100

Young boys don't have a character to root for because the hero is a woman. They'll say "We'll transgender boys can feel empowered that now they too can be a strong woman." I like Kylo Ren- yet he's the villain- as he looks like a man and is a ambitious as a man should. Yet, Hollywood tries to criminalize him as 'masculinity' now equals being evil.

'DON'T buy their TOYS!' Once the greedy Disney execs see boys rejecting their 'tomboy' main character. They'll rush to kill her and replace her with a 'real' main character.