Simple question

Simple question

hahahahahaha

Yes

No, bland remakes are ruining the movies.

No, producers/directors/writers are doing it in an attempt to cash in on the modern fad of feeling "blessed" or "empowered" from some boilerplate story

mlady, le feminists have done nothing but bring inclusive loving feminism to the world and it has only improved western society for all people.

Yes and no.

Yes, it's part of what's ruining movies. No because it's a symptom rather than a root cause. It's more about how western societies are dividing and conquering themselves and as a result these complex forms of media that originated within these societies become more about material gains than anything compelling. As we as a people become more cynical, we become more logical to hold on to a belief system that feels rooted in something. And as we become more logical we become more risk-averse, so now you have risk being carefully managed which makes for a more sedate, predictable movie.

ok, well, we're all hungry, we'll get to our hotplates soon enough...

Aw, is the alt-right nazi drumpfkin triggered?

how can someone ruin something that's already shit and just a product of a shit culture?

being progressive isnt always about taking risks though

YES. and niggers

Aw, is the commie stooge triggered?

Never said anything about being progressive, there are problems with left and right-wing ideologies. Feminism was mentioned which happens to be left wing but all I was trying to get at is both sides of the culture now see the other side as a mortal enemy. Few if any people proudly proclaim they are part of western culture, and few of them even know what the fuck western culture is and why it formed the way it did.

But you are right, it doesn't 100% of the time correlate to risks. But over broad application is tends to.

>attempt to cash in
>every feminist movie bombs
???

>female protagonist
>feminist are behind this guy's
Sjws and anti-sjws need to be round together and raped

I'll say it for you, jews. I mean seriously they turned an idealistic and optimistic saga. Lucas put all his guts in it. What did JJ Abrams personnaly bring in the movie? Is there any fucking scene where he's telling something important to him? That movie is a cynical
cash grab that turns everything that's good in SW into ridicule. They're basically saying fuck this self righteous and selfless Jedi fighting for peace and justice. Now it's a gimmick for kickas womyn who don't need no man except a black nu-slave to make her look even better

Because if you look at how it was formed and the way it was, you'd see glaring contradictions in the left's ideology they are pushing about whites and the history of the slave trade, etc. So its better that we take down statues and destroy documents pertaining to the history of this country.

Politically I both agree with you. It makes my skin crawl when I see people tearing down history, both Palmyra and the new wave of confederate revisionism have left me close to taking up arms. And I might at some point, but when it comes to movies the underlying principle is just that we've lost our way. Doesn't mean it's hopeless, but we have to find a way to reconcile. And fast.

This. The extreme risk avoidance is killing movies. Without it you'd get random feminist films nobody is interested in being made instead of it infesting beloved franchises.

Reagan's Crisis of Confidence comes to mind, it was featured in a recent movie too

>When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

>Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

Simple question, simple answer
yes

>Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

>Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

> Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

This is really going to anger some people but liberal politics and liberal propaganda is what killed the movie industry.

When you run a business you want to sell to everyone, not just half the country. The truth of the matter is that even people who consider themselves "liberal" don't always embrace the entire spectrum of liberal beliefs. Some of them harbor conservative feelings about certain subjects. Many times conservative feelings about subjects like homosexuality, the sexualization of children, etc, are an extension of ingrained, genetically based feelings put there by nature as a failsafe to protect the human species.

Hollywood fails to realize this and their rewards has been losing billions of dollars for the past several years.

Left wing propaganda simply doesn't work. It alienates more people than it attracts.

>Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

> Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

I didn't know nazis liked origami so much

>Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

>The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

>Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

>Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

> If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

>We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

not really. what's ruining movies is people who think that having le stronk wimminz that are super powerful is feminist. same with people who try to hard to have a diverse cast but it falls flat.

if there are females and minorities in movies that feel natural, that's fine.

Yes and no. It's the crazy and insecure higher-ups who inserting their own personal agendas and Mary Sues into films with established fanbases. It ruined immersion when you shoehorn Earth's so-called problems into film universes to make it all about them. Not only that, they viciously demonize large groups of people to justify their narcissism. Sometimes people want to see two space masons paddle each other off with light paddles while vogue'ing -- not wanting to hear why the secretions if Andrea Dworkin's diseased cunt could have cured cancer (Fun Fact: Those very same secretions were inspirations for the Xenomorphs blood!)

I take that for a yes

what is this from?

Nepotism at Hollywood has created a situation where the people running major studios are completely unfit for the position. For example both Kathleen Kennedy and Amy Pascal started their career as a secretaries, no degree no MBA like you would normally expect from a high level executive. In fact they aren't even qualified as secretaries, they're just assistants who got promoted by getting into the pants of male producers. These cunts are afraid of being exposed for what they, street whores. That's why they use the feminist meme, therefore they geta lot of support from women and they are basically impossible to attack, because that's sexist, wage gaping etc...

not sure but it's definitely not from pol

TFA wouldn't have been a better movie if Rey was a man.

No. The Zeitgeist is diversity, oppression and feminism but there's no reason that should "ruin" films. It just gives us either a particular flavour of film or the film gets spun, either by the marketing campaign or feminists wanting to claim everything is going according to the feminism plan.

Woman Woman wasn't a feminist film. The last two Star Wars films weren't feminist films either. Mad Max wasn't a feminist film either.

Same thing is happening with video games. Neil Druckmann (The Last of Us creator) drones on and on about diversity and strong female characters when the reason his game was well received is because it was good. If it had the same diversity-driven mindset but was shit, it wouldn't have been well received or sold as well.

yes, it's too accurate to be from Sup Forums
I found it btw, nice read

This.

It's because producers hear feminsts say they want a movie with a strong female lead, but what they don't understand is, that when feminsts say this, they mean they want a good, original movie with a well thought out plot, where the girl has decent character development and characteristics other than just being a "strong" woman.

Instead they hype up the "look, we have strong women" aspect and expect people to go see it solely for that reason, but are too lazy to put any effort into elements that would actually make the movie good. The result of this is a magnified version of the cookie-cutter committee-driven movies that are infecting most of Hollywood already.

It also doesn't help that the producers and writers seem to think "strong woman" means a cookie-cutter "tough-girl" who is a cross between a Mary Sue and someone who is a bitch to people for no reason, and has no other characteristics besides that.

Essentially these movies usually flop because producers and writers think they are making Wonder Woman, when in fact they are making such a shit movie that even SJWs can tell they didn't put their heart into it.

Theodore Kaczynski's editorial debut in 1995.

Do you think they would have made Rey a Mary Sue if she was a man? Pretty sure not. It's le stronk womyn trope that got out of hand.

If Rey was a man, she would have been a Luke Skywalker clone.
TFA problem is that it tries too hard to imitate the old Star Wars movies.

You're watching a very narrow selection of movies if feminism is a prevalent theme.

>Is there any fucking scene where he's telling something important to him?

I remember a lot of scenes telling me how great diversity must be, and how Nazis are evil even in a galaxy a long time ago and far away, and the superiority of anyone with a vagina.

I would imagine that you don't know how correct you actually are. It's just the way business is conducted these days unfortunately.

>t's because producers hear feminsts say they want a movie with a strong female lead, but what they don't understand is, that when feminsts say this, they mean they want a good, original movie with a well thought out plot, where the girl has decent character development and characteristics other than just being a "strong" woman.

Wrong. They want the most superficial shit on earth. There were dozens of well-written women in the 80s and 90s. The Feminists want literal Mary Sues that have no flaws.

No, it's the failure of basic storytelling in favor of empty escapism and spectacle and franchising.

Oh I know. I work in video games and it's the same thing, to the tune of washed up film execs even taking top spots within the big publishers. As a result some of the same concerns people profess about films are happening the same way on video games, and other forms of media.

I analyze and calculate risk as a daily part of my job, but it's also my job to understand when you just need to take a risk no matter what the odds are. It's a struggle every time I have to present an argument for change - I've lost my job twice over making such arguments but I don't intend to stop over that. Just need more people willing to fight for a higher ideal within their own lives, and these forces will stop having a platform to speak from.

>If Rey was a man, she would have been a Luke Skywalker clone
Wrong.

Rey knew how to pilot a spacecraft with no prior training
Rey knew how to fix the Millennium falcon?
Rey knew how to do jedi mind tricks without anyone telling her about them.
Rey was a crack shot with a pistol she had never seen before.
Rey knew how to fight with a black dildo staff.
Rey knew how to understand wookie.

Luke bullseyed womp rats with his T-16 back home in beggar's canyon
Luke thought the Falcon was a piece of junk, didn't know anything about the customizations that Han made.
Luke didn't know about jedi mind tricks until Obi-Wan demonstrated the technique. He didn't really use jedi mind tricks until ROTJ, and it didn't work against Jabba.
Luke, Leia, and Han all seem to have the same skill level with blasters.
Luke got his ass kicked by a sand people.
Luke didn't know shit about wookies, because why would he?

Who the fuck is this bitch, and why does she have max character stats right out of the gate? Who programmed this shitty game?

I didn't hear feminists complaining about Rey or Wonder Woman. To the contrary these crap only gets praised by them, so I'm gonna assume the producers are right, that's exactly what feminists want to watch, but anyone else is either indifferent or revulsed

Actually, it says that diversity means homely, slave, incompetent, cowardly, janitor. If that means how diversity is great, I must have missed something. But I agree that anything equipped with a vagina is superior for him, maybe he should consider surgery. Is there any director that is more a dickless cuck than JJ Abrams? The only one I can think of is Paul Feig.

Thier ruining improv comedy, That much is FACT.

No, the studios are.

the fans yes.

We had directors putting feminist ideas into movies before (Cameron) but now we NEED all the focus on that bullshit and all the female characters are bland and got no characteristics aside from "STRONG INDEPENDENT AND DONT NEED NO MAN!"

Fucking game of thrones has THREE of those now and they all talk in the same commanding voice all the time looking like they cant even remember the last time they had a genuine laugh, its like they all became Vin Diesel in drag.

Was Cameron being a feminist, or does he just like butch women?
For example:
If Cameron directed Wonder Woman, he would probably pick a 6 foot tall amazonian chick that is still feminine enough to be considered sexy, but actually looks the part.
The feminist version by Patty Jenkins is a rail thin waif of a jewish model from Palestine.
But Wonder Woman is supposed to be descended from Greek gods, right?
Right off the bat, they're ignoring central aspects of the character which breaks immersion.
Feminists don't want to be told what to do, even if they are making the dumbest choices possible that will result in their ruination. They won't take responsibility for their mistakes.

TL:DR: Feminists make feminist propaganda, which ruins the logic of the entertainment franchises they are now in charge of.

Cameron likes strong females but he likes showing them in situations where they actually need to be strong and their resolve gets tested.

I think thats the major difference between actual strong female characters and those mary sue feminist power fantasies.

To be fair to the feminists that's really just a more sophisticated take on the idea of a strong female character and sadly feminists are relatively new to this.

That doesn't excuse them for poor writing but it makes it a bit more understandable.

It didn't do Star Wars or Ghostbusters or Death Note any favors. That's for sure.

Luke was anything but a Gary Stu. He had flaws, was not taken serious by his friends, suffered constant hardships, and developed as a person. Compare this to Rey, who'll likely end up as a deity of some kind by the end of this trilogy.

some white boy from the first world will call me a Nazi

This. Hell, Luke was in over his head the entire first movie. Rey at the end of the first movie becomes as powerful as Luke became after his third movie.

Nah, you're just a good old fashioned dumb cunt.

t. First World White Boi

t. First World White Boi

I'm a lolbertarian, faggot. Thanks to living in a socialist country.

>taking apart ships for years lends to understanding how they work
>emo guy rummaging through her brain is enough to give her the basics
>point and squeeze isn't hard, prequels established that force sensitive kids have better instincts and reflexes
>surviving in the desert with a means of defense

all your other points are valid though

>I didn't hear feminists complaining about Rey or Wonder Woman

Because those are currently-selling products. In 10 years they will be bashing them same as they are now bashing movies from the 90s. Has nothing to do with how good or bad they are or how sexist or not sexist they are. Modern feminists especially on the internet, especially any that is paid as some sort of media critic, are cultural Red Guards. Their job is to sell the new narrative/product whilst erasing the old. As a society of consumers with a materialistic culture, those products ARE our culture.

This works especially well with women-centered products as they are far more gullible and susceptible to advertising, which is also why everything on TV is shit, the entire medium is 100% dependent on advertising, so why would you do anything but create content that panders to the most affected demographics?

Do you think Disney (has an example here) are feminists or they are attempting to appeal to a market and discourse to make more money.

I wanna make sfm porn of her.

They're certainly not helping anything, I know that much.

>when feminsts say this, they mean they want a good, original movie with a well thought out plot, where the girl has decent character development and characteristics other than just being a "strong" woman.
Almost every feminist I hear talk about characters never ever mention shit like that. In fact, they always come across as having no fundamental understanding on how to write a character. In fact, the only feminist I can think of that sort of understands that is Nostalgia Chick, and that's probably because she bothered to go to film school.

>taking apart ships for years lends to understanding how they work
Not necessarily. She only took scavenged the parts and sold them, that's it.

>emo guy rummaging through her brain is enough to give her the basics
What? "Basics" as in mind controlling other people and then proceeding to beat the shit out of Kylo not only with the lightsaber but overpower him with the Force also? Some "basics".

>surviving in the desert with a means of defense
That doesn't mean that she should know how to fight with all kinds of weapons. Take a katana and then take a spear and see how well you'd fight with them.

>Almost every feminist I hear talk about characters never ever mention shit like that.

What DO they mention?

feminist ruin everything

Cameron's two heroines
>Sarah Connor
>Ellen Ripley
Are both maternal figures.
That's why they work as strong female characters.

That's it's nice to see a strong female protagonist in movies. It's usually bare bones stuff like that. They'll usually brush off any criticism towards a poorly written character just because they're a female protagonist.

Sup Forums posters are physically unable to avoid being baited

What about someone like Clarece Starling. Hardly what I'd consider maternal, but she's a very compelling female lead.

>everyone who thinks the government should help its people any more is deeply insecure and suffers from inferiority
>you can't want to help others or right injustices without you yourself living as a perpetual victim
>you can't be for self reliance and hard work if you believe some people need a helping hand once in a while and it's society's best interest to provide that within reason
>all desire to help others through political means is actually you hating yourself lmao
It's nicely written but psychoanalysis is a very poor mode of political discussion.

Mary Sue female leads are unrelatable and cause me to not be interested in watching them.

YASSSSSSSQ!

I MEAN, YES

FEMINISTS RUIN MOVIES, PARTICULARLY THE ONES WHERE THEY CLAW ONTO EXISTING FRANCHISES AND REPLACE THE TRADITIONAL MALE LEAD BECAUSE ITS 2017 SHITLORDS!

Anyone who admits to being a feminist in this day and age is an enemy of humanity. Some feminists are aware of this and want to burn it all down. Others are just misguided.

>is an enemy of humanity
Why?

Yes.

Feminist pandering is just one more sign of an industry in heavy decline.
This year Hollywood is massively losing profits, so that industry won't survive for long anyways.

Not really. Cinema as an industry needs all the capital it can get.

The only way they can do this is to market virtue signalling.

When we get triggered millions of people die

This, the sheer volume of remakes/sequels for 20/30/40 year old properties is getting fucking tiresome.

I've seen that posted on pol before. That's the uni bomber right?

That pic.

Makes me wonder how we would handle ww1 or ww2 these days.