Post: #1

Or not. Talk about wishful thinking. It doesn't take a red pill to see most voters - even women - don't want to be led by a nasty, ugly bitch, much less a total has been like Hillary.

The hamster is strong in this one, Luke.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/...tml#page=1

Quote:

ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION
Thanks to TV's strong women, voters are ready for a female president
Television Entertainment Minority Groups Hillary Clinton Game of Thrones (tv program) Parks and Recreation (tv program) Democratic Party
Thanks to TV's strong women, voters are ready for a female president
Mary McNamara

Television's current acceptance of powerful women may help pave the way for Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign
Mere hours after Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her candidacy for president in 2016, "Madam Secretary's" Elizabeth McCord (Téa Leoni) helped prevent another Cold War. "The Good Wife's" Alicia Florrick (Julianna Margulies), newly elected state's attorney, was thrown under the bus by the Democratic Party, and Varys (Conleth Hill) uttered the "Game of Thrones" premiere's most memorable line after naming the qualities the ruler of the seven kingdoms should possess.

"Good luck finding him," Peter Dinklage's Tyrion Lannister snorted in response.

"Who said anything about a 'him'?" Varys replied.

Divided no longer, Hollywood poised to put big money behind Hillary Clinton
Divided no longer, Hollywood poised to put big money behind Hillary Clinton
If Clinton loses this election, it will not be television's fault. Many things have changed since she lost the Democratic Party nomination to Barack Obama in 2008, but few more pointedly than scripted television's relationship with women. Where once rare enough to be remarked upon, with inevitable comparisons to "Maude" or "Prime Suspect's" Jane Tennison, female leads now abound, many correcting the double standards that have historically kept women from positions of power.

As a controversial American personality, Clinton has directly affected the creation and narrative course of several series. On CBS, "The Good Wife" is the story of long-suffering wife of a philandering politician as she fights her way back to a sense of self that, most recently, included running for office. When "Madam Secretary" premiered on the same network this last fall, some conservative pundits complained that it was overt pro-Hillary progaganda (never mind that though McCord and Clinton share a title, a gender and a hair color, there the similarities end).


Less generously, the nakedly ambitious Frank and Claire Underwood (Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright) of Netflix's "House of Cards" have been compared to Bill and Hillary Clinton (particularly this season as Claire, dismissive of the traditional first lady role, fought to influence policy), and many "Game of Thrones" fans see Hillary Clinton more in the scheming Cersei (Lena Headey) than the noble but struggling Daenerys (Emilia Clarke).

Either way, these shows are but tremors of a much bigger non-Clinton-specific event. From Westeros to the White House, female characters are in power, and no one within the narrative universe or the television audience thinks it's a big deal.


TV antiheroes are nothing new, and the audience's willingness to embrace these flawed protagonists has led to a rise in complex, ruthless and manipulative women as ambitious as any of their male counterparts. Here is a look at some female characters unafraid of moral gray areas.

Viola Davis plays Annalise Keating, a criminal defense attorney and law professor who juggles her career, students, husband and a lover while helping her clients, as the series' title suggests, get away with murder.

Claire Underwood, played by Robin Wright, gives up the post as the CEO of an environmental NGO to not-so-gently urge and assist her husband Frank's ascension up the political ladder. Even Lady Macbeth could learn a thing or two from Claire.

Claire Danes' Carrie Mathison is a CIA officer who more often follows her own gut instincts than the letter of the law when it comes to missions -- both official and personal. Carrie, who is better at her job than managing her personal life, has also been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

Regicide, incest and adultery are among Cersei's (Lena Headey) accomplishments right along with being a mother, sister, queen and regent. Perhaps her most notable accomplishment is that she has so far survived through four seasons of the TV series.
On the recently concluded "Parks and Recreation," political junkie (and Madeleine Albright superfan) Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler) grew from slightly ditzy local bureaucrat to the canny and competent governor of Indiana and possibly president of the United States (as a maddeningly suggestive final scene seemed to imply). During one of the penultimate episodes, she directly dressed down the Pawnee press for focusing on women's hairstyles and parenting techniques rather than issues during political campaigns.

On the opposite end of the digital and tonal spectrum, Claire Underwood spent the latest season of "House of Cards'" coming to grips with the fact that being married to power is not the same as having power. "Scandal" remains a weekly soap-operatic aria to the similar frustrations of powerful women (including a cuckolded first lady) kept one step removed from the Oval Office. On the other hand, "Veep's" Selina Meyer (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) recently did become president, with all the satiric hilarity that that entailed.

And those are just the overtly political roles. Elsewhere, television abounds with women calling the shots in a variety of arenas.

HBO's "Game of Thrones" is as much feminist primer as fantasy epic; on FX, Elizabeth Jennings (Keri Russell), the female half of "The Americans," is just as dedicated and competent a spy as her husband. For much of AMC's "Walking Dead," Michonne (Danai Gurira) has matched Norman Reedus' beloved Daryl in warrior status, while Carol (Melissa McBride) has transformed from abused wife to post-apocalyptic strategist (scheme softly and carry a big knife). Even the iconic title of "Mad Men" has grown increasingly misleading; as the series winds down, it is skewed as much, if not more, to the rise of its women.

See how the women of 'Mad Men' transformed on TV's most feminist show
See how the women of 'Mad Men' transformed on TV's most feminist show
Compare this with the television landscape of 2008. The first series about a female president, the Geena Davis vehicle "Commander in Chief," had bombed previously, and a few scattered stars like Mary-Louise Parker ("Weeds"), Sally Fields ("Brothers & Sisters"), Kyra Sedgwick ("The Closer"), Holly Hunter ("Saving Grace") and Glenn Close ("Damages") had barely begun the great and game-changing A-List Migration to TV from film.

On the Big Four, scripted series, with a few notable ensemble exceptions ("Desperate Housewives," "Brothers & Sisters" "Bones," "Grey's Anatomy"), were dominated by male leads and their stories; President Allison Taylor (Cherry Jones) did not assume office in "24: Redemption" until five months after Clinton withdrew from the race in 2008.

In fact, as the 2008 presidential campaign heated up, many pointed to "24's" David Palmer (Dennis Haysbert), as well as Morgan Freeman's Tom Beck in "Deep Impact," as vital to America's acceptance of a black leader. But scripted television's power to change social attitudes on a large scale can be best summed up in three words (well, two words and an ampersand): "Will & Grace."

The NBC series, a half-hour comedy built around a straight woman and a gay man, did as much if not more in the fight against civil injustice and homophobia than any march or protest. It certainly helped prepare this country for the only recently unthinkable legalization of gay marriage.

Like a mirror doing double duty as a firestarter, television tends to both reflect and catalyze social change, and the increase of strong and complicated female characters is no exception. There has been a big shift in attitude since GOP presidential nominee John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008 on the daft assumption that even a barely vetted female partner would automatically bring him female votes.

Issues including rape, domestic abuse, gender exclusion and pay equity are once again hot topics — April 14 was the second-annual Equal Pay Day, marking how far into the next year a woman must work to earn what her male colleagues did the previous year. As high-end professionals like Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg offer women (often-controversial) advice on "making it," women are once again counting heads in boardrooms, newsrooms and representative bodies like Congress.


Characters like Alicia Florrick, Bess McCord, Daenerys Targaryen and Selina Meyer remain, like the women who play them, well within Hollywood's narrow definition of beauty; they, like their real-life counterparts, increasingly speak out against the unrealistic expectations successful women still face, especially regarding the traditional feminine yardsticks: motherhood and appearance.

TV Picks: Orphan Black, iZombie, Veep
TV Picks: Orphan Black, iZombie, Veep
While "Parks and Recreation" began with Leslie Knope continually railing against the "old boys club" and pointing out instances in which she was the first or only woman, those sorts of story lines are all but extinct these days. A female leader is rarely if ever remarked upon, and though many characters still face sexism, it is most often of a more subtle, non-institutionalized kind.

The challenges of balancing work and family are also acknowledged as difficult, but no longer are they cast as moral crises or insurmountable. Most important, that particular struggle is increasingly being presented as less a woman's issue and more a social one — Mom is no longer seen as the primary caregiver by default; husbands are depicted as supportive, participatory mates and parents while still remaining masculine.

None of which means that Hillary Clinton will, or should, become our next president. She has been a long-standing player in what has become one the most divisive eras of American politics. She enters the race with a lot of baggage, both personal and political.

But America's ability to accept a female president, something that seemed questionable seven years ago, now seems moot. And judging from the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, we are more than ready.


Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times

Post: #2

Remember what I keep saying about Women and how they have an unhealthy relationship with entertainment, basing real-life expectations on fictional characters? This is exactly what I mean.

Post: #3

(04-19-2015 11:09 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Remember what I keep saying about Women and how they have an unhealthy relationship with entertainment, basing real-life expectations on fictional characters? This is exactly what I mean.

Also of note is how TV Execs like anybody else saw the writing on the wall as everybody knew the Washington Wicked Witch would likley run. They then pumped our tons of "womyn" strong fluff shows left and right.

To the OP. Don't get it twisted. How many women will vote GOP who openly say they will take thier ACA goodies away? Like let's be real here, this election is over before it started. The GOP are so clueless into thinking how that policy position won't critically hurt then with women and seniors.

Post: #4

Post: #5

Precisely why I've completely lost interest in Game of Thrones.

Post: #6

Hollywood learned to do propaganda better.

Ten years ago, they tried lubing up the country for Hillary with a TV drama called "Commander in Chief." It struggled through one season with low rating and got canceled.

Then they got smart and didn't make their political leanings so direct. The current crop of shows are more subtle when it comes to showing women in power.

I also think there's been a shift in the audience and men have taken to other media, leaving TV's audience primarily women. So these shows now have a better chance to succeed than they would have ten years ago. (Or is this a chicken-egg scenario, and did the reverse happen? Did TV's focus on women drive away men, like in the book industry?)

From the 2005-06 TV season:

Post: #7

(04-19-2015 11:52 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  Precisely why I've completely lost interest in Game of Thrones.

Uh, You DO know that Cersei, and most likely the dragon lady chick, get what's coming to them right?

Cersei's commuppance is REALLY harsh, The dragonlady's hasn't happened yet but GRMM has been setting the stage for it for a while.

She's not going to win at the end of the series(or books rather)

Post: #8

If we're voting in 90s Clintons, then we should also have the ticket:

Lewinsky - Dole

Post: #9

(04-20-2015 05:56 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Hollywood learned to do propaganda better.

Ten years ago, they tried lubing up the country for Hillary with a TV drama called "Commander in Chief." It struggled through one season with low rating and got canceled.

Then they got smart and didn't make their political leanings so direct. The current crop of shows are more subtle when it comes to showing women in power.

I also think there's been a shift in the audience and men have taken to other media, leaving TV's audience primarily women. So these shows now have a better chance to succeed than they would have ten years ago. (Or is this a chicken-egg scenario, and did the reverse happen? Did TV's focus on women drive away men, like in the book industry?)

From the 2005-06 TV season:

I don't know. I have been seeing and noticing a lot of stuff lately with respect to how television shows and movies seem to prime the audience for a likely outcome. I don't usually side with, though I like to read about them from time to time, any sort of conspiracy theories that float around the sphere but some of this does make you wonder. First, can it really be called a conspiracy theory if it is pretty much out in the open?

Second, Hollywood donates a huge amount of money to politics. If you do some research you find that film has always, since the beginning, been intertwined with national politics. Whether it's films like Birth of a Nation or the Nazi's and their blatant propaganda with film. Politics and film have always worked in concert.

Also, some of this just seems too scripted to be coincidence. I really don't like feeling like a tin-hatter but awhile back I was re-watching some shows from the late 90's and 00's. One was 24 where we got a black president and if you go back and watch it there's a lot of subtle dialogue that has been spoken about Barack Obama by the media and even his own campaign in a almost verbatim way. So, was he primed by Hollywood and now they are priming Hillary? Do they control the strings or work for the people who do and simply found a black man and later a woman? Or is it just coincidence due to pollsters and campaign managers and so on reading the tea leaves of America and then getting hired by politically ambitious people who simply fit better into the narrative than their competitors? I really don't know but it does make me wonder.

Post: #10

Hollywood has a lot of influence but not limitless influence. They started putting women in shows like that because they knew they could get women and manginas to watch them. Because women and manginas were ready to line up for those shows they also might be willing to vote for Hillary Clinton. Hollywood execs-even the left wing ones, which is most of them-just want to make things they think will sell. Nothing more to that.

When Netflix wanted to make a more or less believable show that sticks more closely to how Washington works they had a male president.

Post: #11

(04-20-2015 06:17 AM)CJ_W Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 11:52 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  Precisely why I've completely lost interest in Game of Thrones.

Uh, You DO know that Cersei, and most likely the dragon lady chick, get what's coming to them right?

Cersei's commuppance is REALLY harsh, The dragonlady's hasn't happened yet but GRMM has been setting the stage for it for a while.

She's not going to win at the end of the series(or books rather)

Nope but I like the sound of that.

I was getting tired of the blue pilled idiots in my social circle crowing about how strong women in GoT can go toe to toe with men, both physically and mentally, or jerking off over that line from Vaerys ("who said anything about 'him'").

Post: #12

The Game of Thrones reference is entirely irrelevant to anything to do with Hillary Clinton. The woman in GoT has 3 fucking dragons, and therefore immense power. Hillary has good connections. That is it.

Post: #13

In the books Varys is actually backing a male and only using Dany supporters because of Targaryan loyalty. It is looking like they completely cut that male out, because in the books he reveals that to Tyrion.

The show producers are standard Hollywood types and have already altered a lot of the show to a blue pill beta perspective. Stannis for example is the archetypal stoic patriarch in the books. In the show he is a sniveling villain. So I wouldn't put it past them to change a lot of the later story to make it moe vagina friendly

Post: #14

Of course propaganda has become so much more better - most even here don't see all the points meted out subtly.

Next presidential milestones of the PR figurehead position:

+ female president
+ openly gay president
+ Latino/South American heritage president
+ transsexual president
+ openly lesbian female president
+ transsexual lesbian minority president
+ openly pedophile president ( by then it will be a sexual orientation)

Maybe afterwards they will let go of that charade and stop those fake elections of pre-selected candidates.

Post: #15

Women make up the majority of viewers for network TV. For ABC for instance, 74% of viewership is female about 8% is gay male. FOX is the only exception but its mostly because of Seth Macfarlane. Premium Channels: HBO, Showtimes, Starz its definitely different but they are moving towards network demographics.

Men have embraced new media outlets and other forms of entertainment especially video games. The average age of a 'gamer' is much higher now than it was 15 years ago. Which is why the SJW is trying to force their way into the videogame industry. There is a pattern thats very visible with any form of new entertainment.

Step 1: Men start following something new, its cool and edgy. It could be a show, film franchise, book, game or a new form of media. It becomes very popular and the producers and distributors of the content are making a killing.

Step 2: After a big hit ideas are pitched around with the hope of duplicating the success. Problems arise when the creative talent wants a big fucking raise but it doesn't matter since the distributors(studio, network, publishing house etc) are willing to pay up because its still a smaller risk than financing something original.

Step 3: New ideas are pitched in order to reproduce another success. This becomes increasingly difficult because the wage demands are even higher, core talent is bored and wants something different. Contracts are expiring soon so the distributors will need to pay more money. If they pay more than the revenues have to be substantially higher. The only way to do that is grow the audience and they do this in various ways.

A) Queer Baiting: Adding a gay character to the sequal/remake or hinting(baiting) that the character could be gay or may have had a gay past.
They have to walk a fine line between attracting a new market(gays) and not alienating the current one.

B) Race Baiting: can be done by either switching the race of a character or add a new diverse character. Once again they have to find the right line and decide how far they wanna go with this. Switching a character from White to black will have a shock effect and free publicity but it may alienate some fans. Interracial relationships might have the same effect especially completely unrealistic ones.

C) Adding strong female characters. This is basically what it sounds like but its not only the number of characters but the position they take as well as the manner in which they speak. ex. First season of newsroom vs last season.

D) The Road never taken. Actually focusing on the content and growing your audience through producing better content.

3rd step affects not just the original content but all the media outlets that refer to it. They have almost perfected the way they accomplish this to the point where i am not sure how much of an effect it will continue to have. They buy articles on Hollywood Reporter, Variety and SJW blogs like Gawker/Salon about how we need more diversity on this Show. This is well before they have already made the decision to continue with A) - C). Its effects are maximized when SJW tools buy into it as the idiots they are and echo the bought publicity through twitter mobs and reddit.

Step 4: The content is now full blown SJW propaganda retaining less then 25% of its originality. The original viewers have already moved on to something else. They might retain a portion of the original audience because they want to see how it ends.(NOTE: if you want to have any effect on this, you should stop following or purchasing something as soon as you don't like what you see, quit half way through the season)

This cycle is repeated with few disruptions.

Post: #16

Did someone say Game of Thrones?



Credit: Sabo

Post: #17

(04-20-2015 08:29 AM)StrikeBack Wrote:  I was getting tired of the blue pilled idiots in my social circle crowing about how strong women in GoT can go toe to toe with men, both physically and mentally.

It's easy to form a narrative that unsettles them. Use their own shaming tactics against them.

"So, your idols for female strength are a mannish, unattractive giant; a murderous teen who looks like a gay boy and is consumed by vengeance; an unbelievably-racist fantasy that only a blonde, white girl can save all the dark-skinned people; and a woman whose privilege comes from the power held by her father, then by her husband, and then by her son, who then attempts to murder who own brother and fucks her other one?"

I went this kind of route last year. The trick to pulling it off is to seem good-natured, joking about it, but sort of uncomfortable:

"Man, that's the creepiest show. What do you see in it?"

"I mean, hey, go for it, if that's your thing. I just think the fantasies you're drawn to are... interesting... and incredibly revealing..."

"Sure, I tried reading the books with everyone was talking about them, but, I don't know.... all the sexual mutilation and torture and baby stabbing, y'know? I keep wondering what kind of person would actually enjoy this? And that fantasy of a white girl Jesus saving slaves seems really racist. And Martin keeps writing about the tits of 14 year old girls and underage sex. It's... creepy, you know? It's like reading a book written by Rolf Harris. I couldn't finish it and gave up. I could never be that cynical about the world."

"Note to self: never ask you to babysit."

It's all about leading, and the implications.

No-one on my timeline has mentioned the new season yet.

I don't watch it anymore. Garbage in, garbage out.