Woke Movies

[UnseenParticipant]

Men, as is well known, are likely to compartmentalize their sex life in ways women are less likely to. While I’m in my 70’s, I still have an erotic fantasy life and ideas about what I find attractive. For a long time, my main fetish area on a female body was below the belly button. A nice ass and terrific gams in other words. In recent years, I am appreciating breasts more. No, I’m not one of the “the bigger the better” guys. A B cup is fine with me. I like breasts which are firm, have puffy nipples, and when she stands, the nipples point a wee bit up, not down.

A pretty face and an overall healthy and youthful look almost goes without saying.

I don’t claim this is an actual ideal of any sort. It’s just my fantasy ideal.

When it comes to relationships, that compartment is more practical. My “one that got away” would probably be thought of as a bit chubby by many. Her main attraction was her personality. She was the nicest girl I ever met and being with her was just…easy. I married someone else who didn’t exactly fit my fantasy mold, either. Sadly, that didn’t last.

 

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Surely. However, you must get through that first gate to play.

It’s like a resume. If you haven’t made it to the keeper pile by the a third of the way down the page, you go into the cylindrical file. For men, it’s often the first glance. If you see her and you hear Lady In Red in your head, she’s in.

If instead you hear this one, she’s more than in:

 

[AutumnParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Autumn, I don’t think I’m alone in wondering what you find attractive in men or even if you are attracted to men.

What does that have to do with cinema?

I mean, other than complete and total congruity with your rather highly politicized way of looking at the world.

I don’t have a highly politicized way of looking at the world; I have an impatience for intellectual laziness.

I can’t imagine you’d get along with anyone who didn’t share it almost 100%

You’d be very wrong. I tend to prefer partners with varied perspectives and who aren’t shy about debate. The defining characteristic is that they spend time creating a cogent worldview rather than an agreeable one. But if people habitually spout lazy trash opinions that don’t even get easily verified facts or basic terminology correct, then that falls well below the bar for a partner, possibly even for close friendship.

[AutumnParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

As if the leading movie stars are not above average in attractiveness.

They don’t have to be. Obviously there is money to be made off it, but if we’re talking movie quality, this is a vapid criterion for most (but not all) film to be judged by.

If you’re going to moan about the quality/ enjoyability of woke films but the end point is just that diverse casting isn’t attractive enough for you… well, I got some bad news for ya bud.

[UnseenParticipant]

@autumn

What does that have to do with cinema?

Pay attention. We aren’t only talking about cinema. We’re talking about what women find attractive in men. You’re a woman and so…it’s not a trick question. I went into detail about my preferences. Fair is fair. What raises the humidity in your nether regions?

I don’t have a highly politicized way of looking at the world; I have an impatience for intellectual laziness.

LOL You come off as political by fashioning yourself as a self-appointed judge of intelligence in others, I guess. Come to think of it, that kinda goes along with a woke personality.

But if people habitually spout lazy trash opinions that don’t even get easily verified facts or basic terminology correct, then that falls well below the bar for a partner, possibly even for close friendship.

That’s a description, I’d wager, of people most of us here count as friends or have as beloved relatives. People we want and need to get along with.

 

 

 

[AutumnParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Pay attention. We aren’t only talking about cinema. We’re talking about what women find attractive in men.

I am aware, but I haven’t engaged in that tangent and I have no interest in it. I’ve pretty expressly stayed on the topic of movies and deliberately only engaged the issue of attractiveness that far.

.LOL You come off as political by fashioning yourself as a self-appointed judge of intelligence in others, I guess. Come to think of it, that kinda goes along with a woke personality.

It’s not intelligence I am judging; its application. It doesn’t take high i.q. to apply some diligence, discretion, and earnestness in intellectual pursuits. Intelligence may just mean a difference in speed and/ or complexity with which one forms a coherent and tenable position, but it hardly guarantees a person will do either.

But if people habitually spout lazy trash opinions that don’t even get easily verified facts or basic terminology correct, then that falls well below the bar for a partner, possibly even for close friendship.

That’s a description, I’d wager, of people most of us here count as friends or have as beloved relatives. People we want and need to get along with.

Probably. But this is another tedious tangent, in my opinion. If such people lay off talking out their ass on human rights issues, I am less concerned even if I am equally opinionated.

Take this thread. The thing that drives ‘woke’ movies is, essentially, social inequity. Some are hackneyed cash grabs, some are quite well done, and others are all over the map, but the the issue of social inequity doesn’t disappear from the equation. In this thread ‘woke movies’ has no definition. The recent Little Mermaid is supposedly a ‘woke movie’ because the actor playing Arielle is a Black woman. But is that woke, or is that Disney trying to step back from a long legacy of predominately white leading characters? Regardless how one sees it, it’s a conversation worthy of more than ‘Woke movies, manosphere amirite, bruh?’

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

LOL You come off as political by fashioning yourself as a self-appointed judge of intelligence in others, I guess. Come to think of it, that kinda goes along with a woke personality.

Is that the green-eyed monster talking?  If one is a trans woman, it’s pretty impossible not to be highly politicised.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

My “one that got away” would probably be thought of as a bit chubby by many. Her main attraction was her personality. She was the nicest girl I ever met and being with her was just…easy.

@robert – you see, a pretty face can’t make you laugh or hold your interest (in itself).

[_Robert_Participant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

My “one that got away” would probably be thought of as a bit chubby by many. Her main attraction was her personality. She was the nicest girl I ever met and being with her was just…easy.

@robert – you see, a pretty face can’t make you laugh or hold your interest (in itself).

Don’t underestimate my superficiality, LOL. You are right again, of course, but movies (like books, music videos. video games, etc) have always fed into my sexual fantasies, well until the 2010s at least. That’s off the table now and instead movies are going to school me on diversity and how strong and smart women are and how dumb and useless I am. I’m supposed to pretend that I did not bail-out several women financially, fix their cars and plumbing, cure their destructive obsessions with “The Lord, Jesus Christ”, drive them to the ER, house their children from previous marriages and provide them with excitement. No. Just no.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

That’s off the table now and instead movies are going to school me on diversity and how strong and smart women are and how dumb and useless I am.

I’m all for diversity in movies.  The traditional movie cast wasn’t very diverse.  But painting white men as inherently stupid and evil doesn’t do anyone any favours.  It does drive membership of Andrew Tate fan clubs etc.

[_Robert_Participant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

That’s off the table now and instead movies are going to school me on diversity and how strong and smart women are and how dumb and useless I am.

I’m all for diversity in movies. The traditional movie cast wasn’t very diverse. But painting white men as inherently stupid and evil doesn’t do anyone any favours. It does drive membership of Andrew Tate fan clubs etc.

What, seven real dwarfs aren’t diverse enough? Yes, it seems to me the so called “manosphere” is full of misogynists and it is a growing thing. Again, an example how well-meaning wokeness can backfire. Not to say that none of their claims have merit, but they do take it to the extreme.

The far right is over-joyed with the feminist vs trans “wars”, and they often group it as wokeness gone wrong, but I am not too sure about that. If you ever peruse the tweets in the J.K. Rowling feeds, you will see some incredibly vile stuff. Seems she has taken the stance that the Trans rights movement is another example of men taking advantage of women. This one is baffling because both camps have valid claims. Certainly, we live in a transitional era, and I do wonder how all this stuff will work out.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Yes, it seems to me the so called “manosphere” is full of misogynists and it is a growing thing.

It seems to me also, that the man-o-spear is full of patriarchal women-haters and not much else.

[UnseenParticipant]

@autumn

I haven’t engaged in that tangent and I have no interest in it. I’ve pretty expressly stayed on the topic of movies and deliberately only engaged the issue of attractiveness that far.

As often happens, topics go off onto sidebar discussions. You’ve denied Robert’s discussion about what women find attractive in men, which goes beyond just movies and movie stars. Now I know that trans women can be hetero, lesbian, bisexual, whatever, but can be asexual in their taste as well, just like cisgenders.The other women here are either lesbian or bisexual, I take it, and the men here are pretty clear about their orientation implicitly if not explicitly, I think, so… What’s the problem?

It’s not intelligence I am judging; its application. It doesn’t take high i.q. to apply some diligence, discretion, and earnestness in intellectual pursuits. Intelligence may just mean a difference in speed and/ or complexity with which one forms a coherent and tenable position, but it hardly guarantees a person will do either.

You’re being more than a little disingenuous. You can directly accuse someone of being stupid or you can talk around it so much that people know quite well what yAou’re getting at. People you disagree with are clearrly far worse than just wrong. They are intellectually lacking or even intentionally or unintentionally corrupt. Possibly sexist or racist.

But this is another tedious tangent, in my opinion. If such people lay off talking out their ass on human rights issues, I am less concerned even if I am equally opinionated.

Take this thread. The thing that drives ‘woke’ movies is, essentially, social inequity.

No, it’s the narcissistic need of some to feel like Trump, “Only I can fix this.” And so Kathleen Kennedy makes one dumb choice after another, and as a result (though she’ll never admit it, and you probably won’t, either), thousands of Disney workers are now trying to find jobs elsewhere and suffering severe economic consequences in the meantime. But, why the fuck should she care. She’s rich and even if she’s canned, which she needs to be, she’ll continue to be rich.

Your job, as a studio exec is to put out movies people want to see and don’t roll their eyes over.

Some are hackneyed cash grabs, some are quite well done, and others are all over the map, but the the issue of social inequity doesn’t disappear from the equation. In this thread ‘woke movies’ has no definition.

The public decides what’s well done and what’s worth their money, not Kathleen Kennedy and not you (or me). They have spoken.

The recent Little Mermaid is supposedly a ‘woke movie’ because the actor playing Arielle is a Black woman. But is that woke, or is that Disney trying to step back from a long legacy of predominately white leading characters?

There are other ways of doing that, like introducing new characters along with canons to go with them. The original Little Mermaid was white, in the live action film, she’s not. The reason: someone in the background’s social engineering agenda. Maybe the Little Mermaid  can contribute even more by being, oh, a lesbian trans mermaid(?).

Some of the more far out talk is of turning James Bond into Jane Bond. There’s so much the public can be expected to tolerate of being subjected to other people’s politics, no matter how well-intended. I think most people would accept a race change, though if you know anything about the JB backstory, that would require some explaining. But a full on gender swap would have people staying home to watch Netflix and might even cause yet another franchise to go by the boards, like the recent Indiana Jones disaster, which turned out not be very much about Indiana Jones at all. That was actually kind of a fraud perpetrated on the moviegoing public.

All in the name of a good cause.

You can be for diversity and against oppression without being destructive. A white Mermaid isn’t toxic. I agree that the system has its toxicities. I’m only holding that the way it’s done is often toxic. White mermaids, ugly (Beauty and the) Beasts, male James Bonds are not toxic and are not crying out to have alternatives swapped in. We don’t need Beauty to be fat and homely. We don’t need male characters to be unnaturally weaker than their female counterparts. Changing known characters beyond recognition isn’t working. The public is speaking with their feet.

But of course, dogmatists can’t listen. You said what makes a movie woke is not defined, but woke is defined:

Woke is a system of thought and behavior characterized by intolerance of free expression, policing the speech of others, enforcing approved beliefs through boycotts and denunciations, and proving one’s own superiority to oneself by denouncing the supposed dogmatic shortcomings of others. There’s a pernicious doggedness to resisting the notion that there exists more than one way of looking at things which hinders the free exchange of ideas and further divides society.

Bearing that in mind, I have no difficulty identifying a “woke movie.” Do you? Really? If so, you’re blinded by your ideology.

You know, I think a crime series about a drag queen who solves crimes is a killer series (I’m tempted to try writing such a story myself, actually), but doing it the woke way, by turning Philip Marlowe or Hercule Poirot into a drag queen, is not the way to do it.

Wokeism isn’t so much about remedying the ills of society as it is about the wokeist feeling good about themselves (and better than most everyone else).

[AutumnParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

@autumn I haven’t engaged in that tangent and I have no interest in it. I’ve pretty expressly stayed on the topic of movies and deliberately only engaged the issue of attractiveness that far.

As often happens, topics go off onto sidebar discussions. You’ve denied Robert’s discussion about what women find attractive in men, which goes beyond just movies and movie stars.

I haven’t denied anyone anything. He brought it up in a response to my post. I responded only to that end. That others want to explore that tangent is fine and also none of my business, really. I’m not interested in it.

What’s the problem?

I’m not interested in that conversation. I haven’t been ambiguous about this.

You’re being more than a little disingenuous.

No.

But this is another tedious tangent, in my opinion. If such people lay off talking out their ass on human rights issues, I am less concerned even if I am equally opinionated. Take this thread. The thing that drives ‘woke’ movies is, essentially, social inequity.

No, it’s the narcissistic need of some to feel like Trump, “Only I can fix this.”

For someone who complains about ad homs all the time (which tend to be people expressing they are fed up with you rather than actual ad hom fallacies), this is a very convenient broad brush dismissal which is pretty much an ad hom fallacy or at best senseless hyperbole. It’s as far as I’m going to read. Sorry you wasted your time typing, but I’ve long grown tired of you wasting mine.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

I’m all for diversity in movies.  The traditional movie cast wasn’t very diverse.  But painting white men as inherently stupid and evil doesn’t do anyone any favours.  It does drive membership of Andrew Tate fan clubs etc.

There is nothing wrong with the goal of diversity. What the wokeists get wrong is the way you do it. They are clumsy. The results of their efforts feel forced. Their characters are often unrealistic. Now, most movies thrive on a lack of realism (because everyday reality is frankly very familiar and, thus, uninteresting). But there are limits on what the pubic is willing to accept without rolling their eyes or feeling like they’re being indoctrinated.

There is a basic principle of good design which goes “Take advantage of what people already know.” So, you’re designing a car’s door and you thought of a cool new way to open a door with a door handle that blends into the door so well you can hardly see it. Then, years later a car is in an accident. The driver is dead, the car is on fire, and the passenger who luckily survived but is new to the car can’t figure out how to exit the vehicle.

People bring what they already know about characters. They want to relive their experience and all of a sudden they are presented with a black Little Mermaid or a Snow White and the Seven Not Dwarfs. WTF?!!!

Why does Kathleen Kennedy still have a job?

The wokeists have actually turned a lot of the public into social conservatives. Good work!

[Author]

Posts