You must log in or register to comment.
You only have to look at any anti-woke review for a few seconds to figure out it’s only ever racism, misogyny, and anti lgbtq hate. They aren’t like ‘‘This is why it’s woke’’ with some philosophical discussion, it straight up is ‘‘there’s a black in this game, that’s wrong.’’
This was very evident with Concord the week it shut down. People in the YT comments were inevitably blaming woke politics because it had an arguably diverse cast even though the trailer was one of the most bland, unimaginative and unpolished pieces of advertisement I’ve ever seen. Oh, but it was the blue haired people’s fault for reasons! 🙄
I’m gonna get the quote wrong, so I wont even try, but some internet person basically said that any time there’s a failure, the worse people will come out to claim it as a victory.
Game had cringe writing and was glitchy as hell? Oh, well it was the minority characters that caused it fail. Just ignore all the other games with minority characters that have succeeded.
Alan Turing… Nuff said
Yes this man is absolutely correct. Aside from the obvious strawman’s. The difference between the games he mentioned and the games currently coming out showcasing “wokeness” is that the old games are good.
No one actually cares how “woke” a game is as long as it’s good.
Baldurs gate 2, arguably one of the best games ever made. Concord on the other hand… Ya.
As much as I despise the “anti-woke” crowd, this is not a good argument and completely misunderstands what they’re angry about.
They are angry about what they perceive as “forced diversity” that destroys modern media and that corporates like Disney are pushing a “woke agenda”.
I disagree with this view. I think representation in media is good. Games and movies usually turn bad for unrelated reasons (like rushed production or poor management).
Yeah, exactly… no one tries to understand one another anymore… just assumptions and rage. Of course, people believing in forced diversity ought be met with rage, but only after truly understanding it
It’s easy to win arguments against straw men.
There are two kinds of wokeness I complain about:
-
Hernia level virtue signaling - this is when a production company are straining super hard to make sure we know they’re the good guys, but the writers don’t have the brains to come up with interesting allegories, or even a super-transparent ones like the half-black/half-white dudes in the TOS episode. All they can muster up is character dialog like, “Wow, look how backward this time period is! So much misogyny and discrimination!” Yeah duh, I live in this time period and I’m not stupid. (talking to you, Picard season 2)
-
Misrepresenting the past - this is when they portray let’s say Victorian England or 1950s America as a fully integrated society where characters of all races mix freely, with equality at all levels. That’s not how it was, kids. The black housewife in 1953 Ohio would not have a white maid, she might work part time as a maid in a white household. You don’t raise social consciousness by painting a fake picture of history to avoid upsetting your audience. That does no service to the people who still feel the effects of those times.
But oh right, I forgot, the point is profit not genuine social consciousness - sorry, my bad.
You took the words out of my mouth, both of those are such libshit that I cringe my asshole out.
Remember the Medal of Honor game that was bragging about how super realistic it was, and then had a high-ranking soldier in WW2 who was a non-white woman with a bionic arm?
I guarantee this is the kind of shit we’re gonna look back on in like 10 years and go “God the 2020’s/2010’s were such bullshit.”
That’s another aspect of it - those practices aren’t “libshit” they’re corporate shit. Same as sticking a big GREEN label on random products.
Ya know, there’s a scene in The Boys where Maeve is outed as a bisexual, so they decide to promote her queerness as part of a “Brave Maeve” campaign to encourage those in the closet to come out.
But then they tell her she has to be a lesbian, not bisexual, because bisexuality is “too confusing”, and even then they police what behaviors she is and is not allowed to do; she can be a lesbian but not “too gay”, and she’s only allowed to date feminine individuals while presenting as masculine or vice versa because to do otherwise is to “send the wrong message”
This basically ruins her life, forces her girlfriend to break up with her because she can’t take having to be a “Model Minority” at all times, and Maeve is left so broken she almost reveals the fact that she and Homelander don’t actually save people to the whole world.
When I saw that, I was like “Holy shit, finally, someone else who understands why I, a transgender woman, actively avoid media that caters to the LGBT community. Finally, SOMEONE gets it and they’re making sure other people get it too.”
While I agree with your first point - corporate pseudo-progressivism is a stain - I don’t really think it’s fair to call it “woke”. In fact, it’s almost the opposite of what woke is supposed to mean. To be “woke” originally meant having “woken up” to the reality of systemic racism… Corpos thoughtlessly stuffing games/films with “diverse” casts are not really respecting that reality. It’s performative. There is an argument that it improved things for actors regardless, but I still don’t think it’s “woke”.
On your second point I have to slightly disagree. Taking Bridgerton as an example - set in something like Victorian England, but a racially diverse one. The Queen is black, there’s a black Duke. I think these things immediately set the story apart from real Victorian England. Ok, perhaps if you know nothing about history it might be confusing, but to me I see those things and immediately one of two things is true:
- We are suspending our disbelief. Just like the pantomime dame, within the world of the play, is a woman and not a man in costume, we can assume that we’re seeing black actors playing characters who would have really been white… Like Queen victoria.
- The world we see is not an accurate representation of history. In this world we might assume that slavery was abolished sooner, or never started, and black people moved not just into the lower but the higher echelons of British society.
Given that it’s fiction, I don’t mind either of these things. I think it’s nice for people who aren’t white to be able to imagine themselves in those stories, even if in the real history things would have been much different. Bridgerton isn’t trying to present a vision of real historical events, it’s primarily a romance. Just like mediaeval fantasy isn’t really medieval, Victorian romance doesn’t need to really be Victorian. We don’t need to see the systemic racism any more than we need to see the cholera or dropsy or whatever.
I will also just briefly shill for Taboo which I just finished - that’s a historical show which incorporates a “realistic” amount of diversity into it’s cast while maintaining (at least what appears to me) a level of historical accuracy. The story is fictional, although it appears around real events… But the world it presents feels genuine. Crucially by contrast to Bridgerton, slavery plays quite an important role in the story - so here it would feel absurd to have a black Queen or Duke.
Haven’t seen Taboo but Bridgerton is a fantasy alt world - it can have steam-powered computers for all I care. My objection is specifically about falsely portraying real eras for the sake of casting diversity, which I think is a disservice to people who were held down in those real eras.
Fair enough, I have seen the same arguments applied to it is why I used it as an example. I don’t know what shows you are thinking of, but are they misrepresenting things, or are they just using blind casting and asking you to suspend your disbelief? This is something we do without thinking when watching theatre, but it’s a bit more subtle when watching television or films because they go to lengths to make the environment feel more real.
Suspension of disbelief is great for science fiction and fantasy, but I don’t think it’s healthy to mask past realities. I don’t believe for one second anybody does “blind” casting - entertainment companies pander to what they think their audience’s main demographic wants, and they do extensive research to tell them what that is. They want to be on the audience’s side on every issue, support all the right things, criticize all the right things… there’s nothing blind or random about any of it.
Perhaps, or perhaps the casting team had other goals that aren’t so obvious. While it’s true there are purely capitalistic production firms, there are clearly things being made with artistic vision behind them, and sometimes that includes blind casting. Again, I suspect this is more prevalent in theatre, where audiences are more willing to accept, say, a woman playing King Lear, or black actors playing nobles in a historical setting. Because, on stage, you are already suspending lots of that disbelief - you’re not looking into a throne room, you’re looking at a stage - it’s easier to take it a step further.
But while less is asked of you when watching a historical drama on TV, you are nonetheless suspending your disbelief. You know really that cameras couldn’t have filmed this in the Victorian era, that’s not really Henry VIII, and Jesus wasn’t a white guy. The question is what makes it too jarring for you?
I noticed you’re quite focused on the production company’s intent behind the casting. Maybe it’s politically/philosophically motivated, maybe purely capitalist, or maybe artistic… But you can’t really know. And should it even matter to you as the viewer? I understand trying to unpick the artistic decisions behind a piece, but those of the production company? That doesn’t seem like something to bring into your viewing experience - just perhaps conversations like this one on the internet.
I’d invite you to try suspending your disbelief as you might when watching the Passion of the Christ, and see if you’re able to enjoy these films/shows despite the historical inaccuracies.
Okay here’s my background - I’ve been involved in over 20 stage productions as an actor, director, assistant director, designer, set builder, and various other tech positions. This doesn’t make me an expert but it means I’ve been there and done that. I’ve seen Midsummer Night’s Dream done with 1930s gangsters, an all-black MacBeth in Stratford, England, and I was stage manager for a Comedy of Errors in a Hollywood Squares style set with a cigarette-smoking nun playing a piano. I understand suspension of disbelief, so you don’t need invite me to try it like you’re talking a kid about broccoli.
Casting directors do not cast “blind” except background crowds, and even then the overall look and feel is as important as paint scheme and set decoration. I imagine this is even more true in television and movies, where there’s a lot more money at stake and a lot more people to please. They carefully control every element they can - if only because every person in those coveted positions is striving to prove how indispensible they are. Nothing is done at random except for occasional quick one-off decisions. I don’t object to comic anachronisms like throwing WWII German soldiers and Count Basie’s orchestra into Blazing Saddles. I’m talking about serious stories where everything seems to be meticulously recreated except the painful elements of society are being whitewashed for the sake of pleasing modern-day sensibilities.
Suspension of disbelief only has meaning for an audience that already has knowledge of the material, but today’s audiences generally know very little about history except what they see in movies and on TV. You probably aren’t even aware that about 1 out of 4 cowboys in the Old West era were black. Ranch work was something a lot of freed slaves took up after the Civil War. But having grown up with American movies and TV, my mental version of the Wild West is almost all-white - with the odd asian cook, or an occasional black dude sweeping up in a saloon. I bet yours is similar. That’s why I criticize the current trend of misrepresenting history as a carefully balanced well-integrated society. Whatever the reason, it’s just a different generation trying to please audiences. Like every generation the one currently doing most of the creative work in Hollywood thinks it’s more enlightened than every other one before it, which is another crock of shit. One delusion in the collective consciousness is no better than another.
I understand suspension of disbelief, so you don’t need invite me to try it like you’re talking a kid about broccoli.
Haha, ok, I wasn’t trying to be patronising - my suggestion was that you try suspending you disbelief in situations where you otherwise might not. Clearly you know what it is, I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Jumping ahead a bit to another relevant part of your comment…
Suspension of disbelief only has meaning for an audience that already has knowledge of the material
Where I am suggesting you might suspend your disbelief is exactly that - a situation where you have knowledge that the world you’re seeing is inaccurate. Anyway, I don’t mean to come across as condescending, sorry about that.
Casting directors do not cast “blind” except background crowds, and even then the overall look and feel is as important as paint scheme and set decoration.
Blind casting doesn’t mean you have to have no artistic vision. It just means you aren’t concerned with, for example, the gender or race of the actor. I saw a production of the Little Prince a while ago where the titular prince was played by a woman. Now, given the storyline (which was presented more or less true to the book) I think it’s clear that there was no philosophical motivation behind the casting… She was just small. I’m sure it was a conscious decision to cast someone small, but do you really think they specifically wanted a woman? I doubt it.
I’m talking about serious stories where everything seems to be meticulously recreated except the painful elements of society are being whitewashed for the sake of pleasing modern-day sensibilities
This specific situation I can understand. The reason I was inclined to argue with your original point, and why I jumped to Bridgerton as an example, is that I have usually seen these arguments presented in relation to things just like Bridgerton, where they really have no place… So, do you have an example?
-
Oh, this Lara Croft chick has to be a strong, independent woman, huh? Tired of shit like this and Metroid. Quit hamfisting women into things and virtue signalling
Never, ever, not in the entire 90’s decade I was alive did I even hear anything remotely similar to anything like that. It was unheard of.
No one even thought about it like that, or even had the concept to consider them that way.
…until 2016
They gave Lara depth and humanized her, and this made the horny gamer boys angry cause they just wanted to look at boobies and not think too much.
She had all that in the PS2 era and none of us cared then.
those games were also kinda mid…
I’m just tired of being lectured in video games. Sorry if that makes me anti woke.
Spiderman 2, veilguard were both worse off because of poorly done DEI. BG3 was fantastic and created characters that weren’t talking about pronouns like I’m a 5 year old. Sorry not sorry.
Spiderman 2… worse off because of poorly done DEI
Played it, loved it, no fucking clue what you’re talking about
The deaf girl?
Please choose body type:
- Body Type 1 (with large shoulders and no ass)
- Body Type 2 (with large ass and boobs)
Ah yes, progressive inclusiveness. So much better!
I’m just going to say that a lot of creative, innovative, or interesting things, regardless if they’re physical items, narratives, gameplay mechanics, or even just a new process for handling a particular task, is borne from diversity.
We are different. That difference is a strength. The more different we are, the larger of a gap between how I approach an issue and how you do the same. The Delta between your approach and mine is beautiful. One may be more efficient, one may be easier, one might be less expensive to do.
If we all thought the same, and we were extremely similar in what we knew and how we thought, nothing would ever change. Progress would not be possible.
A great example of this is with the blue LED. Most companies have been able to make blue LEDs for decades. The problem is, they were expensive, and shit. They couldn’t brighten up a shoe box.
One guy took a blue LED manufacturing process that everyone else abandoned, and worked with it for the better part of like, 5 years or something. He invented the modern blue LED in all its glory. Bright enough to blind you from across the room, and cheap enough to produce that they ended up in a lot of places they probably shouldn’t have been. That experimentation also yielded a near ultraviolet version that with a simply phosphor filter, can be converted to visible light, and white LEDs were born
Yeah, and the guy that invented the blue LED - essentially saving the company - got shit upon because he did so against the orders of the company head. They then went after him legally when he took a job at another company.
He actually won a lawsuit against them later but my understanding is that after legal fees etc didn’t really come out ahead. It’s a pretty sad story.
Diversity in entertainment is important, and ultimately done right it’s also good for profits. Having a game, movie or produce that appeals to a broader audience is good for sales.
At the same time, some entertainment does come with an existing core audience and a bit of a “formula”, so altering that too much does risk alienating that core, and frankly some duds get blamed on 'ism when the reality is they’re just not that good or changed too much. “The Witcher” flubbed because those writing the scripts were increasingly out of touch with the original material, but if they’d also done something like make a Geralt (or somebody else significant) a different orientation, race, gender or whatever then some would have blamed that failure on the anti-diversity crowd.
There’s been a ton of Blame on both the show being ‘woke’ and the internet hate machine. The first season was pretty good imo, well done outside he fact it was a TV show with limited resources. But the second season was so badly written. You can change all you want as far as I care, but they wrote that season after completely ignoring who any of the characters were in season 1. And giving them intentionally the opposite personality, and motivations from the books they were supposed to be adapting. It was just bizarre, and insulting to watch, I get why Cavill bailed, anyone with the financial means should have done the same.
But it wasn’t because they had black actors, female characters that talked and wore clothes, or mentioned empathy, and it didn’t fall out of favor with audiences because internet trolls stank on it. It was just badly done in ways that felt lazy and dumb.
Ugh, DEI has even infected the past now!
When a game puts it in your face that this character is is gay/trans/ethnic in a way that feels arbitrary to the setting or effected character, it comes off very much like a political move for sales.
Let’s use soldier 76 from overwatch as an example. The way he was written on top of the are they aren’t they thing he had going on with Ana didn’t support him being gay at all. The announcement that he is gay came completely randomly and really fealt like a political move to add a little more representation.
On the other hand, we have good characters who happen to be LGBT, Ellie from the last of us, or my personal favorite Veronica from New Vegas.
good characters who happen to be (whatever)
There it is!
I agree with you, slapping a veneer of diverse identity on a character post-facto is often just performative bullshit. At best it’s bad representation, at worst it’s cynical pinkwashing and pandering for profit.
But that’s not a distinction I have ever seen an “anti-woke gamer” railing against.
What I do see them railing against is any representation in games that does not pander to their own personal preferences.
Did you not encounter any of the backlash to Ellie’s sexuality? Honestly I think TNV only escapes a lot of that kind of vitriol because it was released pre-gg.
I won’t disagree that Soldier’s gayness came pretty much out of the blue, but I don’t think it’s a good example of something that was “put it in our face”. I play Overwatch regularly still with people who have no idea he’s gay - the game itself doesn’t say anything about it, at least not that I’ve seen. The only way you’d know originally is if you followed Overwatch social media or read the blog post they announced it in, something that only a small fraction of players actually do.
Not that there would be any game that meets their “unwokeness” purity standards.
Out of sight out of…
People are mad about the weirdest thing.
When I was fully a gamer™, I used to get mad when people said that video games would make people to murderers. Now a bunch of the people, who probably used to get mad with me, are afraid that somehow video games makes you gay. Like dude, you know it is bs. You said it is bs.
“But it is about how the narrative suffers from the woke shit” yup totally true which is why the political right hated the harry Potter game for jk rolling’s wokeness with Dumbledore’s homosexuality and her rewriting of history by lying about what her notes would mean. Because they “hate” when authors don’t respect the story but go for clout. (For those, who don’t know, once jk said in an interview that a David star meant that the character is a wizard, later she claimed the same David star meant the character was a Jew) oh wait, they didn’t boycott the game but hyped it up? Surely not because jk is a terf. No way.
You know what was surprisingly woke? Smokey & The Bandit.
You’d think the truckers would be all white guys, and they’d be casually racist through the whole thing since it’s the 70s. But it wasn’t. Truckers of all shapes and sizes. And the main trucker character is friends with black people.
In the 70s. In a trucker movie.
