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

Post Reply New Topic

Oh okay, but that isn't why people are complaining about why Hollywood sucks nowadays though is it? It's not the casting they are complaining about, I thought it was that Hollywood is too PC in it's storytelling, not the casting?

It is both.  Political correctness has not only infiltrated storytelling and casting, but many behind-the-scenes activities, as well.  Prop and costume shops that are owned by minorities or women get preference when awarding labor contracts, and then they let out the work to the same "traditional" companies that have been doing the same work for decades.

Oh okay, but when several people say movies suck now including friends of mine, and myself, then do most people really care about political correctness, if means the stories are going to suck, which is why I myself am turning to foreign films a lot?

Why does it seem that you want to complicate the issue?

Some people like political correctness in movies, and some do not.

Some people like traditional values (i.e., classism, racism, and sexism) in movies, and some do not.

Some people like Disneyfication, and some do not.

Some people like good, honest entertainment without symbolism and hidden messages or agendas, and some do not.

Can it be explained any more simply?

Oh okay, but why is Hollywood not making more politically risky movies then, if there is an audience for it?

Hollywood is risk-adverse; meaning they would rather produce more sequels or more remakes of remakes of successful movies and TV series than take a chance on something new.

Check out the Independent movies that premiere on Netflix -- they are the ones taking risks, not Hollywood.

It appears that you are in/from Canada which then means you are not the Hollywood target audience. Hollywood doesn’t need Canadian viewership. Also, exceptions don’t necessarily disprove statements. Despite all the things I said about Americans, I am American and I do not fit my own description. It is however still true.

Oh okay, but most Canadians I know, do not want to watch any other movie that is not American though.

That does not speak well for the quality of Canadian-made movies.

Well most Canadians including myself, we hate most Canadian movies. A lot of them are just poorly written and made and there is a good one maybe every 10 years about, but it's a needle in a haystack I think. So most Canadians watch American movies as a result, but American movies can also afford to market and promote their movies much further in Canada though to them more noticed.

The only Canadian directors I know are very fringe. I think they’re great but definitely super duper weird.

If you’re differentiating between a movie whose subject is inherently political/social-justice-related (eg Just Mercy), and a movie that’s just a regular old movie but that has made obvious intentional moves to make the cast and crew more diverse (eg newer Star Wars), then you could say that part of it is reactive. (Movies about social issues go back nearly as far as movies themselves, as many others here have pointed out.)

Hollywood has historically been proud of its progressiveness, punctuated by a few outspoken conservatives (see: the communist blacklist and Ronald Reagan, current politics and James Woods). Back in the day (although certainly today too) a lot of Hollywood execs were Jewish, had fled persecution, or were descended from people who had fled persecution. For every David O. Selznick, there was a Louis B. Mayer. They had the clout and the money to make films that occasionally pushed against the status quo, or were in direct opposition to politically conservative policies (see: many films made during WWII, the Red Scare, Vietnam War, Watergate, etc.).

That most certainly hasn’t changed. Think about the Academy Awards in 2002 or 2003 when Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins held up peace signs multiple times through the broadcast to protest the GW Bush invasion of Iraq. It was during his administration that we got Syriana, Michael Clayton, and the Hurt Locker. This is nowhere close to a new phenomenon.

This time around, however, because of other reasons like competition with streaming services and overall drop-off in theatre attendance (well before COVID), Hollywood has been trying to maximize its profit with the safest possible strategy: remakes and sequels. But Hollywood is also the inheritors of the Hollywood culture of subversive cinema, even if there’s not one thing subversive about making YET ANOTHER Spider-Man. So what can they do? Make Spider-Man Black (even if only in an animated movie). Make a Black Panther movie. Make Wonder Woman. Make Fin’s love interest an Asian woman. It’s not the idea that isn’t working, because it has worked many many times to Hollywood’s fiduciary delight. It’s the actual stupid movies they’re making that are bad because they’re too risk-averse to try an original screenplay when they know that if they make the Avengers franchise last forever or remake the same Star Wars film over and over but with slightly different characters, people will go see it and they will make a few bucks.

Oh okay, but why was Hollywood not afraid to make something more original like 10 years ago though. Why is it more risky now?

Because, like I said, nowadays streaming services take a very large piece of the studio revenue and theatre attendance has been diminishing. Streaming existed in 2010 but nothing like today.

Oh okay, but what does streaming vs. theater have to do with it. Why does streaming have to be more politically correct and less risky, compared to theaters?

Bewitched had an episode that aired in 1970 about racism. The episode was called Sisters At Heart. So even woke existed on TV shows back then. The episode was written by African American students.

Why are people making a fuss about it now when they didn't back in the 1970's or the 1980's or even the 1990's or even ten years ago is beyond me.

I’m sorry, I will try to rephrase. Hollywood studios make films with the intention of being released in theatres. Before streaming services were ubiquitous, the film industry could take more risks, mixing more original stories among the sure moneymakers, because if a riskier idea was unsuccessful, the studio would be able to recoup the loss from the profits from the blockbusters.

Then streaming services started becoming actually competitive with movie theatres, not only for the availability of first-run releases in the comfort of your own home, but also with original series and movies only available on that service. I think that really broke open with Orange is the New Black.

The way the Hollywood studios have chosen to stay in the game has been to greenlight safer movie ideas because they are earning so much less profit from the growth of streaming that they can no longer risk as many box office failures as they could when their biggest competitors were independent films.

Safer = less original, less edgy, fewer new directors/writers, and more sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, adaptations, live-action versions of animated films, and animated versions of live-action films.

Where the so-called political correctness comes in is in the studios’ efforts to stay relevant. Another way to gain audiences is to start making movies with more diverse casts and crews. Hollywood producers and executives aren’t dumb, they have entire departments dedicated to finding out what people want to see.

And, because it’s Hollywood, famous hotbed of liberalism, they are more likely to want to appeal to progressive audiences, because the executives themselves are liberal. They can see which way the wind is blowing, and even if a bunch of people would want to see more Larry the Cable Guy, that’s not the direction many investors and producers are going to go.

Again, the films they are actually making are crappy. It’s a mishmash of strategies that don’t necessarily make for good movies. I think Disney+ is an example of a major studio adapting both strategically and commercially. The Mandelorian (which I have never seen) is pretty popular, and by hosting Hamilton, they are demonstrating the political message they feel is most advantageous for the sustainability of the company.