Is the alt-right ruining movies?

Post Reply New Topic

We have a political duopoly here in the UK and most places locally have a monopoly, the two largest parties support mass immigration and multiculturalism.

Hello.

For starters, I'd like to state that I'm neither rightist nor leftist.
I know you aren't coming to discuss the movies themselves but since you mentioned those two, I'll give my two cents on them later. It's just my opinion.

I don't think the alt-right is spoiling the movie experience for anyone for two reasons. First, people are entitled to their opinion. They don't like the movies and I have to admit that they have a point. Second, there's a patent political agenda behind the movies and the authors are putting this agenda above the stories. All the ideas in a film should be faithful to the story it's trying to convey. They're doing the other way around: they're ditching everything in favor of the agenda. Overall this builds a very poor experience. Even when there's a point the authors are trying to push, such as some political point of view, they must remain consistent to the structure, characters and every other idea that makes the film what it is.

I am not a huge fan of the original Ghostbusters movie but it's a comedy and as such, there are goofy characters and odd situations. Saying that a female character can't be stupid, commit mistakes, behave like a b***h, say wrong things at the wrong time and provoke accidents, just because she's a woman, is like saying that these roles should be assigned to men only, meaning "only men would be stupid enough" and so on. So, the original film itself isn't sexist but the remake is, because the latter is trying to tell the audiences to look through the specific lens of gender politics, which was never the case before in the franchise. Also, let's remember that the biggest mistake in the first movie was committed by a man, a Ghostbuster himself, thinking of the marshmallow monster. This renders invalid any accusations of sexism towards it.

Still on the original Ghostbusters. What's regarded as one of its many strengths is the well-designed characters. The remake on the other hand, has none of that. One could argue that they're a bunch of very strong women, but what makes the difference is how you introduce and portray your strong characters. You don't tell the audience "this is a strong character, believe me"! You have to show that to people through the character's actions and make the audience believe it. The remake is terribly written in every aspect.

Now on the "SJWars" film. I liked this one very much, despite the (again very obvious) identity politics and SJW takes. The reason why I loved it so much is because the old story was becoming more and more of the same. It was repeating itself too often. Imho, it should have ended in the original (unremastered) trilogy anyway. There are good instalments now and then but even so, they don't add much. On the contrary, they detract from the story if anything! The films after the original trilogy are kind of a mixed bag, they have more misses than hits, but overall they can still be enjoyable.

To put it simply, SW fans are arguing that TLJ is too inconsistent. Turns out, Star Wars isn't supposed to be consistent in every department and it's totally self-aware of it. Starships make noises in space, for one. It's not trying to put too much of real science into the story. That would be Star Trek, not Star Wars. It's a "space opera" type of fiction.

It was fans who were pushing for absolute consistency in the first place and once SW is a very unapologetically comercial kind of movie franchise, the responsible parties tried to please the fans. After all many people want to have that one great idea that will turn them into millionaires, and this was Lucas's million dollar idea and he wouldn't ruin it by denying the costumers what they wanted. The whole Star Wars was always about that. It's a people-pleasing franchise. Soon, Star Wars became a large universe trying to tie in all the ends and please every fan's quest for consistency. There were books, action figures, comics and so it goes. For one, how a character such as Bobba Fett, which had but a brief on-screen appearance, suddenly becomes so loved? Fans were intrigued by that presence, the armour, and his death. They started demanding more on the character and soon it was everywhere on side material. Bobba Fett was built on fan-base and propaganda, all a commercial transaction. That's one example.

Now, TLJ was in fact full of inconsistencies but if the angry fans stop and pay attention for a while, most if not all are exactly the same kind of flaws from the original trilogy. Little has changed in that regard.

That said, all that's left for some is to be angry at the biased ideology messages, which really are there. In this I will agree with the angry fans. Also, there's a lot of terrible writing and forgettable characters in the movie. Laura Dern's character was specially boring and unbelievable, and I say this with all respect to her work because she did a fantastic job as an actress but the material she was given to perform was totally useless. That's the same kind of problem with the new Ghostbusters: a film is supposed to show the characters and situations and let *me* decide whether I do care about it or not. These two films don't do that. The authors shovel stuff down your throat and tell what you are supposed to think about it.

One last thing, TLJ destroys the male characters to highlight the female ones. That's not how it's supposed to be. You highlight the female characters by writing them great scenes and dialogues.

Well, that's all.

You're always free to start a pro-xenophobia political party, but the currently existing ones don't do so well. I stand by my previous comment since your rebuttal fails to rebut.

Wow, that's pretty racist. I'm surprised to see someone say something so blatantly anti-black here. How is that allowed?

If a person of African descent has British citizenship, and has a baby, the baby is British, too.

So to you, being British or Chinese is more genetic than cultural? How about German versus Austrian? I doubt that nation states are that genetically distinct.


That's at least consistent, but you'll have a hard time finding anyone in Britain without any Norman ancestors. How do you know you are not a descendant of a Norman? Those Normans did put themselves about quite a bit. Will you expel yourself if you find you have Norman ancestry? To where? Brittany, or all the way back to Scandinavia? You could go back to a still earlier time, and declare all Indo-Europeans invaders, and kick their descendants out of Europe. That would be you and me, both. Do you think India or Pakistan would welcome us?

And if being mixed race doesn't disqualify someone, why would a Norman ancestor from 40 generations ago?

It's hardly controversial that Hollywood was founded by Jews. See eg. Neal Gabler's An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, or the documentary Hollywoodism: Jews, Movies and the American Dream, which is based on that book. And as Indian producer Raj points out in this video, you are still a nobody in Hollywood if you aren't Jewish.

It is also not controversial that most American Jews are Liberals. Nor it is controversial that movies have been used for decades to push political agendas, due to their effectiveness as a brainwashing tool.

So what exactly is wrong about the "Alt-Right" stating the blatantly obvious?



It's not the "Alt-Right" that is trying to ban any opinion that hurts their feelfeels.

Also, it's not so much the "Alt-Right" that is complaining about Liberals destroying Hollywood, as it is old fans of franchises like Star Wars who see their beloved franchises get corrupted by Liberal identity politics, with its ridiculous Mary Sue characters and other nonsense.

And accusing those who complain about the increasingly blatant propaganda in Hollywood movies of being the ones destroying Hollywood is simply ridiculous. It's shooting the messenger, really. The best way to ruin a good franchise is to insert blatant, nonsensical propaganda into every nook and cram of it.

You think of 1997 movies like Austin Powers, Liar Liar and Spice World as examples of good movies?

Seriously?

You are joking, right?

When I think of good 1990s movies, I think of movies like Edward Scissorhands (1990), Natural Born Killers (1994), Trainspotting (1996), Pi (1998), American History X (1998), The Big Lebowski (1998), Magnolia(1999), Fight Club (1999), American Beauty (1999), etc.

And they still make movies like that. I'm thinking eg. of Black Swan (2010), The Congress (2013), Filth (2013),Baby Driver (2017) or Like me (2017).

Great movies may be father and fewer in between, though, as I can't think of nearly as many great movies from this decade as I can think of great movies from the 1990s. Then again, that may just be my memory failing. Either way, great movies still are being made, and are definitely worth looking for!

Immigration happened long before there was a single government. You should have a look at "Bloody Foreigners" by Robert Winder:



That's sounds a lot like "It is well known that Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction". It is not evidence. Anyone can claim that anything is public knowledge.


So would you be upset if a movie portrayed Jack the Ripper as Indian?

Also, the Bond movies had a Lotus that was both a fully functional sports car and a fully functional submarine, lasers in orbit more powerful than anything that flies even today, decades later, but the thing you find most unrealistic is that the son of a Scottish aristocrat and a Swiss mother could look like Idris Elba?


So I was wrong about the Celts. You mean Cheddar Man: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/scientists-get-their-first-look-cheddar-man-one-england-s-oldest-modern-humans. You do know Cheddar Man was black?


So if Idris Elba gets some blue contact lenses, will he be Bond?

Yeah, what's so wrong about anti-semitism? Pointing out the Zionist cabal that secretly rules the world and keeps the poor little Aryans down with their pro-Jewish propaganda, what is so bad about that?



And I believe you're serious too, that you really mean this. Both hilarious and tragic. Tragilarious? Hilariagic?

What are you implying?

That Neil Gabler, Joel Stein and every other Jew who acknowledges the obvious fact that Hollywood is (and always has been) very Jewish are all evil antisemites?

That it is not possible to say anything about any individual Jew or group of Jews that could be perceived as negative without being antisemitic?

That facts are antisemitic?

Tell me... What is your point?



We ARE talking about Dr Who, right?

From Wikipedia :



And here is one of the many articles celibrating this... for the sake of "diversity", of course!



It sure doesn't seem right to me that Jack the Ripper or Vlad The Impaler would be played as an Indian... not just because they're cultural icons, but also because they are historical figures who lived in all-White countries. Abandoning historical accuracy for the sake of "diversity" peddling is simply wrong.

Jack the Ripper or Vlad The Impaler being played by an Indian actor would make sense only in a Bollywood movie, where every actor is Indian.



The problem with this is not so much that it is unrealistic as it is the fact that it is blatant "diversity" propaganda that adds literally nothing to the story.



He wasn't. That's just more blatant propaganda.

See eg. Ancient ‘dark-skinned’ Briton Cheddar Man find may not be true!

Evidence! Just what I asked for. Only, one of the sources you offer as evidence has this to say about Daniel89's earlier claim of the change being imposed from above for reasons of propaganda:
Fans.

I am still not convinced by the propaganda claim. Give me good enough evidence, and I'll change my mind about that, too.


I didn't say that was my motive for the suggestion. But now that you allege that motive, what would bother you more? What you consider historical inaccuracy, or "diversity peddling", and why?


You seem to object both to historical inaccuracy and "diversity propaganda". Which bothers you more? Would you object to historically accurate diversity propaganda? More than to historically inaccurate erasure of diversity?



Not for you. I take your word for it. If it adds something to the story for other people, would you accept that a legitimate reason for them to ask for that diversity? As legitimate as your objection?


"May not". Do you have a source that explains the reasons and is not behind a paywall? And how do you get from "it's more complicated than first reported" (my paraphrase) to "blatant propaganda"? That is what keeps bothering me. The repeated claim, without evidence, that what you object to is propaganda.

Last edited by Gromit on 15 Jan 2019, 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not implying anything, I am flat out saying that the alt-right is full of anti-Semites. It's one of the few things the various different wings of the alt-right seem to agree on, that Jews are evil. The fact that many movie producers are and have been Jewish doesn't make the alt-right any less anti-Semitic in their rhetoric. So supporting the alt-right and repeating their talking points make you look like an anti-Semite by associating yourself with them and using their rhetoric. That's what I am overtly stating.

Ans since when was Victorian England an "all-white" country? You know the British Empire, during it's height of Victoria's Reign, had colonies, right? And many of those countries they colonized were made up of PoC, yeah? And many of those colonial peoples went to live in England, were you aware of this? From colonies in Africa, from the Carribean/Jamaica, from colonies in the East. Also slavery was a thing that happened, that brought many people of colour to the UK as well as to America (yeah, America was not the only country to have slaves--surprise!) So how do you figure England was an "all-white country" at the time?

Why can't you just look it up for yourself?

Why do others have you hand you everything on a platter?

It took my literally 5 minutes to find this evidence. Are you that lazy you can't spend 5 minutes verifying claims made by others?



Just do your own research.

I did not come to my current views by having everyone hand me everything on a platter. It took me years of research, constantly challenging the status quo, to get to where I am today.



If a movie takes place in a certain time period, I'm bothered by historical inaccuracy unless there is a good reason for it, which means that it improves the story being told in one way or another, which can compensate for that. For example, there are biographical movies where several less important real life people are compounded into a single semi-fictional character to increase the flow of the story and keep the focus on the main character(s). I can live with that.

Here we're talking about traditionally White characters (historical or otherwise) being made eg. Black or Hispanic & traditionally male characters being made female to adhere to some politically enforced racial & gender quote, which actually weakens the credibility of the story.

And it's not just because the characters replace were White or male. If they made Genghis Khan or Malcolm X White women, it would be just as ridiculous and problematic.



If we're talking about history lessons, historical accuracy should be a key priority. So I'd bother less about "diversity" propaganda being pushed in history class if it could be done without distorting history... which is hard to do, though. But that's another topic.

We're talking about movies here. Movies are a medium for story-telling. And here, the story is central. So, we should look at whichever has the best / worst impact on the story being told. That's a less clear-cut case IMO.



What about this article?

That article barely took me a minute to find.

Again, what is it that's stopping you from finding these articles for yourself if not either laziness or an unwillingness to challenge your own irrational biases?



The reality is that we simply don't know Cheddar man's skin colour. However, there is no reason whatsoever that his skin color is any different from that of native Britons (which is White), other than a questionable computer algorithm.

The whole "Cheddar man is Black" story is nothing but a blatantly obvious attempt at attacking the very notion of native Britons being White, in just another sickening attempt to push multiculturalism down our throats!



This "diversity" propaganda is literally everywhere... from ads to TV shows to school curricula. It boggles my mind how anyone can be so surrounded by propaganda yet fail to recognize it.



The so-called godfather of the "Alt-Right", Paul Gottfried, actually happens to be a Jew. Also, Richard Spencer, one of the main figureheads of the "Alt-Right", expressed his admiration for Israel & its Jewish identitarianism on multiple occasions, even calling himself a "White Zionist". Spencer is also reportedly a good friend of Stephen Miller, Trump’s chief speechwriter throughout his presidential campaign and the Jewish adviser behind his "American Carnage". And then there's the fact that many on the "Alt-Right" continue to support Trump to this day, in spite of its close ties with Netanyahu, Adelson & others on the ethnonationalist Zionist right.

Calling the "Alt-Right" is an antisemitic movement is about as ridiculous as accusing Trump of being Putin's puppet. I wouldn't be surprised if you believe that ridiculous conspiracy theory as well, though...



That argument is similar to arguing that anyone who is a vegan must be an evil antisemite because Hitler was a vegan!



Until the 1960s, France was the only country in Europe with a significant number of non-Whites. Even in England, with all its oversees colonies, the actual number of non-White immigrants was negligible.

Also, the few non-White immigrants Europe did have used to stick to major cities like Paris, London, Amsterdam or Brussels. As soon as you went to the countryside, everything was not 95%, not 99%, but 100% White!

I was born in the 1980s and I'd never even seen a Black person in real life until the late 1990s or early 2000. Now I see them everwhere.

Even the Europe I grew up in, as a kid from the 1980s, was far less "multicultural" than the Europe I live in today. Even with all the immigrants from Turkey & Morocco that came to Europe between 1960 & 1990, most of Europe was still extremely White in the 1980s.

This was the case in the UK from the 1500s until the late 1700s. The Somersett and Knight cases represent the end of that period as the courts determined no legal basis for slavery existed within English or Scots law.

I'm agreeing with your description, just adding detail since those cases might be used to argue it never existed by someone who knows of them, but not about the situation prior to them (like me until an hour ago).