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

Post Reply New Topic

Up until the 1970s at least some network affiliates refused to air "controversial" subjects about such topics as racism or homosexuality.

There is a difference between a show or movie about racism and a "woke" show and there is a difference between a show about racism and a show putting "woke" stuff in an episode just because.

Most of the shows that were literally anti racism back then would be considered anything but "woke" today. They would never be made and if they were they would soon be forced off the air because of "inspiration porn" and "white savior" tropes.

Personally, I do not understand all the animosity toward the perceived intention behind the individual interpretation of SJW. Anything gets tiresome, even offensive when someone goes over the top with their beliefs including SJW. I enjoy watching movies or television programming featuring strong women where men previous dominated.

"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"

Colonel Parkers philosophy , first the tired formula films , then the endless concert tours. That Presleys career suffered was of minor importance as long as $$$ came in.

Raymond Chow also wanted to play it safe , why take the risk with new films when you can do Fist of Fury part 8 (there is no such movie , just using an example of successful formula)

Did we really need 7 Police Academys......no , but audiences turned up , well cept for #7 which flopped hard

It really has been happening for generations [great examples by the way], and "the agenda" is more or less just writers and producers trying to expand a potential audience, better reflect an evolving social climate in real life, or simply to offer a different perspective. Neither "The Jeffersons" nor "Sandford and Son" were simply black versions of "All in the Family" and I don't see either show as being targeted only to black folks. Honestly, I know black southerners who enjoy watching "The Andy Griffith Show" and also know an unapologetic extremely racist white guy who absolutely loves "Sanford and Son".



I agree. It's not new, and if anything much of the frustration seems to be tied with the sociopolitical climate in the States while so many people [particularly in the part of the country I live in] simply lost their minds when we had a president for eight years who happened to be black. [Honestly, I saw DJT coming a mile away, before he even won the nomination, particularly after Hillary won her nomination and ran on a platform of "eight more years of Obama". Conservative white people down here, and they seem much the same in mostly white rural areas coast-to-coast {at least in my personal experience/travels}, were so freaked out by a black president and legal gay marriage, I had been saying since 2014 that the next president was 'definitely going to be an old white guy, for better or for worse'. That writing was on the wall in places such as where I live. If urban and younger voters would turn out like they did in 2008 and seem to be this year, our government would better reflect its citizens, but I digress]. The diversity of fictional media and SJW plotlines, indeed, were nothing new... they were just being railed against by the same 38-43 percent who still supports the guy I usually refer to as "He who must not be named".

Diversity/SJW situations could also be seen in acclaimed classic Hollywood films such as the trans relationship being a huge plot point in "Dog Day Afternoon", a strong female protagonist leading around a group of men in the old west in "Cat Ballou", not to mention other films which challenged LOTS old-school norms such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Patch of Blue" (1965). The latter made waves, many theatres in southern cities in the US refused to show a movie in which a middle-class black college student took pity on a white girl in poverty [who suffered from blindness and extreme abuse in her home life]. The former film also featured a black man who pitied a white woman, which was absolutely blasphemous to conservative whites down here.

However.... while I both enjoy and celebrate so-called SJW plotlines, I also see the folly in the Academy's recent decision to refuse any nominations for films with an all white cast.... so a brilliant historical epic about Vikings or even say, the great lady warrior queen Boudica revolting against Roman rule in ancient Britain could not be considered for an Oscar just because all of the characters are white...? And also, as someone mentioned, recasting voice actors on TV shows like "The Simpsons" and making Peter Parker black seems almost racially insensitive in and of itself, it's kind of just PC pandering to me. Why not just create new characters with more diverse ethnic backgrounds? As League_Girl pointed out, Hey Arnold had an extremely diverse cast of characters, which being set in a big city spoke more to realism than simple political correctness.

Sometimes diversity in films gets a reaction that goes against the grain of social norms. I remember when Disney's "Princess and the Frog" came out, there was some anger [from black social activists outside of New Orleans] that "the princess wasn't black, she was just mixed race" [or as we say in New Orleans, 'Creole'] and that "she didn't even have a black prince" [he was from South America, Brazil I believe].

Another interesting recent example of diversity in a non-traditional context was a casting choice in FX's version of "A Christmas Carol" from last year. In that version, Bob Cratchit's family was mixed-race [he was Anglo, his wife was Creole-African]. My mother figured that it was a bit of a stretch, likely done as a reaction to the modern political climate [which it may well have been], but it got me to do some reading about diversity in early 19th century London. Turns out, unless one was of the Lord/Gentry class, such a relationship was far more likely in 1830's Britain than it might have been in most of the United States at the time, and indeed not unheard of in Dickens' day for one of Bob Cratchit's social/class status.

Oh okay, but when you say the 'modern political climate', what is the modern political climate compared to say, five or ten years ago? I'm not American so I guess I am not as familiar with the issue?

I mean what the Hollywood writer said in the video that Hollywood is mainly interested in making movies that they don't think Donald Trump would like I find to be ridiculous.

I mean do other business establishments in the US do this too? Do restaurants specialize in serving cuisines that they feel Donald Trump wouldn't like and that is their business M.O.?

Right. I personally believe that this comment just about sums 'er up right there....

SJW plotlines have existed for most of the history of filmmaking itself, not to mention modern literature. People on all sides of the political spectrum give 'he who must not be named' WAAAYYYY too much credit for driving sociopolitical realities, as they did before he even won the GOP nomination, much less the US Presidential election. This is why he's taken credit for everything good that has happened to America in the past 20 years [which frankly isn't a very long list]. Most of why he happened to the US [and the world] has everything to do with austerity, sharp declines in American manufacturing, and the alienation of most of three generations of working class Americans by both political parties. He simply was a con-man who became a lightening rod/beacon to attract attention for all of America's disenfranchised individuals from all backgrounds, political persuasions, and walks of life. He gets far too much attention for allegedly driving trends in American and international affairs, which he has always done throughout his almost 50 year career in whatever the hell it is that he actually does for a living. It's also why he has cameos in so many Hollywood films set in NYC, he's like one of those suckerfish that attaches themselves to the bottom of a shark.



This is one of the funniest things I've heard in weeks. Absolutely hilarious, and sums up your point brilliantly. Kudos! For the sake of it, if any restaurants actually did use that as a business model, I imagine they would serve only healthy foods.

SJW's are the people who's parents never told them no. They are the result of not wrapping before tapping.

Oh okay. I saw Parasite (2019) not too long ago, and loved it. I was so glad they just wanted to tell a good story and not care about SJW stuff. Perhaps South Korean filmmakers are not that big into the SJW movement.

Yeah. Two non-girl characters are buddies. Doesnt mean that they are gay.

Even Freud said that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". And sometimes a rifle is just a rifle.

The Rifleman series predated the rise of modern feminism, and was during the Fifties/early Sixties era in which TV was over populated with gunslingers. So they had to come up with every gimmick to differentiate on the usual pair-of-six-gun-pistols formula. So they had cowboys with...one rifle (the rifleman), cowboys with no gun but with a sword (Zorro), cowboys with no weapons but their empty hands (Kung Fu), Brit cowboy with a cane and derby (Bat Masterson), cowboy with a myriad of Victorian high tech gadgets ala James Bond (the Wild Wild West), and so on.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 08 Nov 2020, 3:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

I have not seen the movie yet, but isn't the movie quite strongly about class inequality, meaning that it is literally about social justice? Regardless of if it looks different from a South Korean lens than things that the West focuses on.

No I was an SJW before trump got elected...I also listened to vinals before people 10 years younger than me ever had..I think that means I am a hipster instead of a SJW but IDK. I still hae SJW views I guess.

but then all the disney movies from when we were kids....teen girl meets prince happily ever after. Turns out that is not how the world actually works. I was able to give up the illusion why do some people have such trouble with that?

Oh but the SJW movement seems to be all about identity politics such as themes having to with race and gender, and a screw you to Donald Trump, if that's the case. Where as Parasite, even though it's about rich vs the poor, is not trying to force anything abour race or gender into it, if that difference makes sense. I also think that the writer didn't have a screw you to Donald Trump in mind, when writing it.

Last edited by ironpony on 08 Nov 2020, 3:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Socially conscious movies have always existed since the dawn of movies.

But if they really are shoehorning an issue into a movie where it doesnt belong then its bad story telling.

But I guess I dont watch enough modern movies, and dont watch enough current Saturday Morning cartoons to judge whether or not they are doing that. But if they are I doubt that it started with Trump.

And the rare times I do see modern special effects movies the lead character always seems to be a hot chick who kicks ass. Xena the Warrior Princess, Black Widow, Wonder Woman, whatshername in Resident Evil, and even little Hit Girl. The reason they make movies that way nowadays is obviously so that (a) all of the feminists can see an empowered woman, and (b) so all of the male chauvinists can see a hawt chick. Its not shoehorning SJWism into a story- which is already contrived dumb comic book story anyway.

Why would a South Korean movie deal with politics of race and gender the same way America does, or have something referencing Trump? Do you know that the movie did not have any nods to identity or political figures?

And it really seems what people are willing to call SJW is just politics they don't like, a bogeyman, when dealing with the topic of things like class inequality and the flaws of capitalism are right in the same wheelhouse. It is like one of the main topics of the Left wing commentators I watch that also do the topics that you would call identity politics.

Oh okay, well I think that the difference with Parasite is, is that lately politics in American movies, seems forced, like they are trying to force it into a story, that doesn't have anything to do with it, for a motivation that doesn't seem relevant to the story. If that motivation is to slam Trump, I am not sure. It's theoertical. But it comes off as patting themselves on the back.

Where as Parasite, the class struggles are natural to the story to begin with and it doesn't feel forced on top, to satisfy a forced agenda, to pat themselves on the back, in comparison, if that makes sense?

As for if anyone or anything political is mentioned in Parasite, there doesn't seem to be in subtitles... There is a joking reference to the North Korean media, made out of humor in one part, but that's all I could find. They don't try to force it onto the plot.