Is it true that SJW movies only exist because of Trump?

Post Reply New Topic

One of the reasons I cannot stand so many Hollywood movies lately is because of the SJW elements they try to force into their the stories. This is why I have been watchings so many foreign films the last few years.

However, I saw the video where a Hollywood screenwriter talks about how they use SJW politics because of who is President. He discusses it at 31:55 into the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj2X_yhUxEQ&t=1710s

So he is says that these SJW politics have been pushed ever since Trump was elected and that his career has had a comeback because of it.

However, is this true though? If so, does that mean that once Trump is out of office, whether it would be this year, or four years from now that, theoretically, the SJW movement in Hollywood will leave him with him?

what examples of "SJW movies" are we talking about?

No.

When I think of SJW movies, I think of movies like A Bridge Too Far (1974), All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Apocalypse Now (1979), Billy Jack (1971), Born on the Fourth of July (1989), Casualties of War (1989), Catch-22 (1970), Civilization (1916), Das Boot (1981), Full Metal Jacket (1987), M*A*S*H (1970), The Americanization of Emily (1964), The Battle of Algiers (1966), and many more that pre-date the Trump era.

Most all of the old school franchises are now destroyed because of their SJW/Mary Sue "upgrades". Terminator, Star Wars, Dr Who, Star Trek, are all just unwatchable tripe nowadays.

Well by SJW movies, I mean movies that try to shoehorn social justice politics, where the story does not work for it. For example, Terminator: Dark Fate, the new Charlies's Angels, Birds of Prey, and perhaps to a smaller degree, the Black Panther movie, are ones that I can think of, off the top of my head.

This is one of the few times we agree.  I am sick of the 'Disneyfication' of these classics, which has turned them from thrilling action-adventure experiences into the bastard step-children of some demonic association between Hallmark and Schoolhouse Rock.

Last edited by Fnord on 06 Oct 2020, 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Definitely (see my reply to Mr Reynholm, above).

The pivot-point from Action-Adventure to Social Statement seems to be along the same track that turned the delicious malicious mayhem of Saturday morning cartoons into a seemingly endless stream of nature shows and happy-clappy lessons on the power of friendship sometime during the mid- to late-1990s.

Blecch!

Oh okay. Well, do you think what the writer is saying in the video on youtube is true, that Hollywood is making these movies because they hate Trump, and once Trump leaves the presidendency, that theoretically, the movis will get rid of the SJW movement, and go back to normal hopefully?

The problem is bad writing, and it has nothing to do with politics.

Terminator movies have been kind of bad in a while since they had been trying to reinvent themselves to seem fresh, but don't forget that in the second movie, which is the best, it already shades feminism in its strong female character. I have not seen the recent Charlie's Angels, I heard that it in general had bad writing, and not a case of social justice stuff, plus it would be ridiculous to think a Charlie's Angels movies is not inherently political in its female characters. Birds of Prey was actually a pretty good movie, I think that it is plenty fun and an adaption of a historically all female group in DC. And Black Panther has been very well received, I can't see what the point would be to complain about it.

I think that people tend to forget that movies they might currently think are apolitical were very likely not considered such in the past. Star Trek in general has always been politically progressive, having things like the first on screen TV interracial kiss, and many stories had what would have been considered progressive at the time.

There was an interesting video that I watched recently that analysed Jurassic Park through a feminist lens, tackling an article that was made near when it came out and said it was anti-feminist. This video took a different approach and posited that it is in fact feminist, especially along the lines of how its male lead starts off in blue and the male in pink/red, but they swap by the end, with the man becoming maternal as the woman steps up into a more action role. There is a particular scene of note where Sattler is left with one man who is too wounded to move and another that is older and significantly less mobile than her, and she agrees to act, and Hammond asks if he should do it instead, implying that it is because he is a man, which visibly annoys Sattler over the sexism. These sort of themes already exist in older movies that people who might even complain about changes.

I would argue Star Wars too, where Princess Leia was kind of a subversion of expectation in not being the sort of blonde bombshell you might have expected in the role, and her first words to the hero saving her is questioning him about being short.

I think that it is ridiculous to think that movies would stop being progressive once Trump is out of the picture, as it stands, the ones people are accusing of being "SJW" are just recent shifts in politics that recognise things like inequalities. I would say that the worse you will have is pandering that misunderstands things.

"If a character can be replaced with a potted plant and the story still works, then it is safe to delete the character."

This is one of the maxims from my creative writing class.

I wish it was applied more often in movies and TV.

Oh okay, how is Charlie's Angels inherently political? I saw the early 2000s movie, and that one did not seem that way.

What do you mean by pandering that misunderstands things?

You don't think that a movie that stars women as action heroes is inherently political when the genre is generally filled by men? Even if it has not political intent it is at least going to have an element when you will find some that have a problem with it.

By pandering that means things I am talking about how a movie could adopt some feminist elements while not understanding why they are there in the first place.

That depends on whether the female actor could be replaced by a male actor without changing any other detail of the script.  If so, then it is likely a political move; if not, then the movie is really about a "Woman versus X" conflict that a man could not believably portray.Of course.  As has been stated elsewhere, there are people who see lead characters as male or "political", white or "political", Christian or "political", straight or "political", et cetera.  Sad.I think the word 'Tokenism' applies here ... "We need to re-write the third act ... I know!  We'll have the hero stumble across a token lesbian couple who run an orphanage that must be destroyed in order to save it!  The lesbian couple dies, the hero must defend the surviving orphans from being enslaved by druglords, and ends up adopting them all just before the final credits roll!  Am I brilliant, or what?"

Welcome to Hollyweird...

I do miss the days when you just watched the damn movie without micro interpreting it for social messaging. And unless the movie was explicitly a political movie or a political allegory the directors purpose was to thrill you, make you cry etc. And not liking a movie meant “it was not your cup of tea” not you are a racist or a snowflake who can’t handle uncomfortable truths.

Ok boomer

Speaking of Star Wars....

What Disney actually DID to it was swear off the Expanded Universe, dubbing it as "Legends", and made an entirely new Star Wars saga that became very shoddy and watered-down, affecting plots and characters (CURSE YOU, DISNEY!! !! )