More "woke" brainwashing before and during Toy Story 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobperk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some relevant excerpts from Variety. Names are left out.

Being an LGBTQ Ally

First Openly Transgender Actor
 
Apples - Oranges. If you can’t see the difference, then I can’t help you.

I thought we were having “fun with memes”.

Not caring what Hollywood thinks…

Go ahead and extrapolate on that.

By saying that anything anyone does that I don’t agree with, like, etc… is “supporting their agenda” comes off pretty tin-foil hat and looking for a reason to be offended. If you don’t like a movie (or movies) that have a SS couple in it for a few seconds or in a trailer…then don’t go. The movie makers aren’t dumb, they know how to widen their base.
edwest211 said:
Some relevant excerpts from Variety.
Click to expand...
Variety…?? I don’t remember the last time I saw one of those. Do people still read it?
 
It’s still the top Hollywood publication and is part of the agenda. Read it online if you don’t believe me.
 
I still roll my eyes at this agenda thing…

Anyways, I won’t be reading Variety. Not really my thing and I don’t want to give them the web hits.

Giving them web hits just helps their “agenda” 😉
 
No web hits? OK. Another source:

ACTION: Offers simple actions for complex solutions to facilitate social change at the student, industry, and societal level

Explore the Initiative​

Inequality in 1,100 Popular Films
The Inclusion Rider
Research Areas and Reports
The Music Coalition
AII Team
Partners
 
Last edited:
How Hollywood Is (and Isn’t) Getting Better at LGBTQ Inclusion

The headline for an article in Variety.
 
So there’s a column (opinion I assume) in a rag called Variety about how Hollywood is becoming more inclusive…?

OK, I can go along with that. I can see that they are becoming more inclusive. I don’t see it as a bad thing, they’re people too and are also potential paying customers…
 
I think people reading should understand that groups like GLAAD publish an annual report about what Hollywood is doing.

“GLAAD will continue to work with Hollywood to tell those stories – and hold the networks, streaming services, and content creators responsible when they do not.”

Sarah Kate Ellis
President & CEO, GLAAD
 
Yes, those were gaming references. Rolling a natural 20 would mean a perfect dodge.
 
You honestly subscribe to the notion that young teen intercourse is the same as two consenting adults…ya, I don’t need your help.

Which one: Why I used the meme.

I guess to emphasize how I think it’s “tin foil hat” to believe that throwing a SS couple into Toy Story 4 is somehow part of some sort of “agenda” and that believing in said agenda is pretty tin foil hat in and of itself

You used naked gun to try to sarcastically emphasize a point to me, so I’m not sure why you’re getting bent out of shape over it.

Ditto, haven’t had a good meme back and forth in a while.

Eh, not me. A) Looks like we disagree on the ideologies B ) I don’t think Hollywood has all that much power and C) people start reading wayyy too far into things when they’re looking for a specific outcome.
 
Hollywood has the power to shape people’s perceptions. They know that.
 
You’re giving them too much credit…and taking too much away from parents.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Sorry, I don’t see that as similar…like not at all, not is the same stratosphere.

Sorry, just calln’ it as I see it. I find that the argument that Hollywood is “comn’ for our kids” is pretty “tin foil hat”…if you don’t like it or find it as bad form, that’s not on me…

I’m honestly surprised I needed to further explain…I thought it was pretty straight forward ¯_(ツ)_/¯

You may need to expound on that. Not sure with what it has to do with the thought process Hollywood has more control over our kids perception than the parents. You’re not giving parents much for credit.
 
I’m not sure I’d say it is as good as the original, but it’s still enjoyable.

Their take on the Internet was a bit harder to accept than of video/arcade games. They still do the thing of mixing real and fictitious sites, just like they mixed real and fictitious games, but while the original stuck to the fictitious stuff for the main storytelling, Ralph Breaks the Internet does a heavy mixture of both, sometimes even attaching a fictitious site to a real company. Their place in the general Internet is also just weird. The best feeling I can describe is that it is the world-building equivalent of the uncanny valley. It kinda works to progress the story, but it’s hard not to get the sense that something is a bit off.

Ignoring that, the story (minus a bit of a deus ex machina problem) and characters are fantastic. Ralph and Vanellope have as great a dynamic as the first movie, and it definitely feels like they had another story to tell with the two that wasn’t a simple cash grab. They do go through some of the same motions as the original, but it felt natural enough for the characters that I only noticed in hindsight.

Also, the princess scene is possibly the funniest thing Disney has ever done.
edwest211 said:
As someone who knows how Hollywood works…
Click to expand...
Note: Reading a few articles about the process behind a few movies doesn’t mean you know how the industry works or the motivations behind certain decisions.
 
I am friends with a Hollywood Script Editor. We discussed his work and compared it to my work as a book editor. We both saw the same number of bad submissions, acceptable work and the relatively rare, good submission. We discussed a great deal. One thing he said, “I think it’s a miracle some movies get made at all.” The entire movie production process was explained in detail.

I know an agent who has explained Hollywood to us and I have reviewed Hollywood contracts, not as a lawyer, but from a content standpoint.

The motivations are painfully clear.
 
Now I’m just busting your chops, but since they didn’t write something like

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

, that doesn’t really qualify as “All Caps”.
[/quote]

True, (name removed by moderator). But I think Ed has his complete CV headlining them caps. Makes it A Lot More Important.
 
edwest211 said:
The motivations are painfully clear.
Click to expand...
Hardly. Unless there’s an explicitly-stated motivation to push an agenda (e.g. Rebecca Sugar), there’s at least four pretty obvious reasons someone would include gay characters (which may even exist for those like Sugar):
  1. They want people to connect with the characters.
    a. As a corollary, they may also have found this to be a blind spot in entertainment.
  2. They are writing from experiences.
  3. They want to provide another perspective and avenue of exploration for the characters.
  4. Money, money, money, and more money.
Heck, these four aren’t even entertainment-exclusive. I’d expect anyone in a very consumer-centric industry to see elements of it in their companies’ diversity programs and outreach.

Granted, #1 still offers a bit of an agenda, particularly on its corollary, but it is at least in general alignment with the goals of many writers, not necessarily something being forced in for the sake of it.
 
TC3033 said:
Are you sure it isn’t just broadening their advertising…¯_(ツ)_/¯? If someone asked me if it’s an “agenda” or if the film makers/marketers are using a broad advertising brush to reach more families to get more people in the theater, I’d take the latter.
Click to expand...
LOL, of course it’s an agenda. Come on, you can’t be that blind and aloof to it. In my first post that started this thread, I mentioned that there were two pro-gay commercials before the movie, and then a lesbian “two mom” scene in the movie itself. I mean what percentage of the population fits this category? Are the movie producers really going to get that much more money by appealing to this tiny fraction of the population? The US is about 23% Catholic, so if they really wanted to make money hand over fist, maybe include more Catholics in movies?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top