What TV SHOWS are you watching?

White Lotus is a fun popcorn show, a low stakes soap opera, really. With ass eating.

I think it’s far more likely that studios are finding that having a more diverse cast and characters opens them up to a wider audience in 2022. That’s as cynical as I’m gonna get here. The idea that adding diversity to a cast is done to inoculate show creators from criticism seems pretty preposterous to me. If anything, it’s done despite that criticism. If the show is bad for a bunch of reasons, don’t list, “and also the main character is gay for no reason.”

The funny thing to me about those who complain about ‘wokeness’ and those who think the free market solves everything are often the same people.

hotseatgames wrote: White Lotus is a fun popcorn show, a low stakes soap opera, really. With ass eating.

What is it with the millennials and the ass eating? Do they just not have taste buds?

My working definition of wokeness: Awareness and empathy for the injustices suffered by women, minorities, and the disabled. If somebody doesn't like wokeness, I don't like them. I hate bullies with a passion.

Shellhead wrote:

hotseatgames wrote: White Lotus is a fun popcorn show, a low stakes soap opera, really. With ass eating.

What is it with the millennials and the ass eating? Do they just not have taste buds?

They don't have soap out where you live?

Shellhead wrote: My working definition of wokeness: Awareness and empathy for the injustices suffered by women, minorities, and the disabled. If somebody doesn't like wokeness, I don't like them. I hate bullies with a passion.

And what it’s come to mean on the right is simply the existence and visibility of these groups in places where they were usually not seen or represented. Elon Musk claims to be a centrist but goes on to claim that ‘the woke mind virus is a threat to civilization.’

Shellhead wrote:

hotseatgames wrote: White Lotus is a fun popcorn show, a low stakes soap opera, really. With ass eating.

What is it with the millennials and the ass eating? Do they just not have taste buds?

Y'all know I come here for answers to life's deep questions.

Shellhead wrote:

hotseatgames wrote: White Lotus is a fun popcorn show, a low stakes soap opera, really. With ass eating.

What is it with the millennials and the ass eating? Do they just not have taste buds?

Everyone knows you include ass eating to cover up for sloppy writing.

Jexik wrote: I think it’s far more likely that studios are finding that having a more diverse cast and characters opens them up to a wider audience in 2022. That’s as cynical as I’m gonna get here. The idea that adding diversity to a cast is done to inoculate show creators from criticism seems pretty preposterous to me. If anything, it’s done despite that criticism. If the show is bad for a bunch of reasons, don’t list, “and also the main character is gay for no reason.”

The funny thing to me about those who complain about ‘wokeness’ and those who think the free market solves everything are often the same people.

You (generic you) can't determine why studios make their decisions. Producer A thinks diversity qua diversity is a good thing, and Producer B thinks more diversity keeps the Woke Mob at bay. Net effect is more diversity.

hotseatgames wrote:

Shellhead wrote:

hotseatgames wrote: White Lotus is a fun popcorn show, a low stakes soap opera, really. With ass eating.

What is it with the millennials and the ass eating? Do they just not have taste buds?

Everyone knows you include ass eating to cover up for sloppy writing.

Might distract folks from the multiracial elves.

sornars wrote: As mentioned by Jackwraith, expecting them to lean on the creative team to make changes to make shows more marketable in line with their positioning doesn't seem far fetched; in fact it sounds like their job

Except that's not what I was saying. What I was saying is that it's an absurd premise to suggest that a creative team will somehow know that the pitch or, later, screenplay that they've been given is bad and their answer to that will be to cast "woke/progressive/buzzword as you will" characters in order to cover for a bad story/shitty writing. That's just not how it works. If they think the writing is shitty, they'll find some way to do rewrites, even if it means asking the talent what they think is the right thing to say two minutes before a take. (I've seen it happen.) Also, using so-called "woke" characters to cover for shitty writing won't work for the segment of the audience like mtagge who clearly don't like said "wokeness." It's just a bullshit take on its face and is being proffered as a way to suggest that said shows are being ruined because they've decided to have characters that represent a wider swathe of humanity than the bog-standard "White Guy" hero. In this case, he apparently objected to a female lead kissing another female because it somehow introduces the taboo idea of SEX to kids. Except.., what if it had been Standard White Guy kissing that female? Would that have been too sexualized for the children? (Insert Helen Lovejoy wailing here.) Or is he coming from a premise that all displays of affection that aren't heteronormative are solely about sex and corrupting the youth which is, of course, the tagline of every right-wing attempt to keep non-heterosexuals from being accepted in society? (Pedophiles!)

Who cares if she's a lesbian? Who cares what color she is? Who cares if she doesn't fit that standard model? The answer to all of those should be: "No one who's actually concerned about the quality of the story." (Or, really, just "No one.") because they don't affect that story in any way nor do they cover for a story that's subpar. If it's not well-written, it'll be a bad show whether there's gay people out front or not. BTW, the "you guys are proving my point for me" is also standard operating procedure for someone who's been called on their bigotry and has decided that the furor isn't because of the fact that they're saying something bigoted, but instead because they've uncovered the "true secret" that the woke mob doesn't want to admit to. Seen it all before.

hotseatgames wrote: Everyone knows you include ass eating to cover up for sloppy writing.

No, no, no, no, no, EVERYONE knows ass eating is the new way to make turgid, boring exposition interesting!

Game of Thrones style "Sexposition" is soooooooo 2010's!!

Now it's "Hey General. There is a comet approaching Earth at a velocity of 35,000 km/s"...

General: "BORING! No one can stay awake during this sciency talk! General Westmoreland, come over here and eat my ass while this bespeckled nerd blabbers!"

As for the Willow discussion, no ground is going to be gained by any real discussion of it here. Though there certainly are organizations that instituted quota systems (the Oscars, for example) that probably do place some characteristics above talent once a base level of performance is achieved.

However, barring the examples where casting diverges from the source material (always going to be a contentious issue no matter what) there are also cases where the problems with a show or character opens up criticism to ponder if the desire to hire certain attributes trumped on-screen quality. Obviously this happens all the time in a less visible way, my desire to see Brad Pitt star in my movie CLEARLY overlooks that the role was originally written as an old asian lady and his name on the marquee overshadows that he wasn't really the intent.

The Obi-Wan show is a good example. The Reva character was atrocious, nonsensical, and portrayed in a very wooden and flat manner. Was it the fault of the actress? Was she there because of the boxes she checked as an person? Or was it due to the director who chose those takes or failed to coach the actress to deliver a more engaging delivery?

So in isolation you could make the case that the actress was the wrong one for the role and certain hiring pressures (especially in Obi-wan where 3-4 of the other main roles were canonically locked to specific types) may have influenced her getting the part over someone else.

Or you could take a step back, look at the entire disastrous run of that show, and realize that it was a train wreck on almost every level and the Reva character was doomed no matter who or what played the part and the problems started WAAAAY before any casting notice was put out and she just did her job as well as anyone could and took those 2-3 lightsaber jabs to the belly like a champ

jason10mm wrote: However, barring the examples where casting diverges from the source material (always going to be a contentious issue no matter what) there are also cases where the problems with a show or character opens up criticism to ponder if the desire to hire certain attributes trumped on-screen quality.

Not to argue with your entire post, but the first part of this is just plain wrong. A Game of Throne is a good example because Tyrion looking absolutely nothing like he's described in the books did not cause anything resembling the reaction casting black Velaryons did. Casting that diverges fromm the source material almost always become a problem if it means adding more POC or more women.

Eh, I dunno about that. Tyrion in show and book is close enough that anyine could draw the comparison. Sure, Dinklage is a suave guy and they wisely didn't try to bury him under scarred face prosthetics, but he is fundamentally a recognizable adaptation.

The Velaryons though, not only was the casting undermining a critical plot point (passing off the Strong boys as Laenors instead of that white guy always near them) but it contradicted the lore, such as it was for them. There were like three prior marriages between Velaryons and Targaryen in the past 4 generations, you'd think they would be a lot more homogenous at that rate.

There ARE black people in that world, they could have added an entire Summer Isle faction if they wanted. I thought the Corlys actor nailed the attitude though, if they had just did a cold open with him I don't think anyone would complain (other than Lore purists, who will always find something to complain about in an adaptation).

mtagge wrote: You guys are all proving my point much better that I ever could, thanks.

Your point was that people use diversity to deflect from criticism.

Nobody here has done that. Nobody has proven your point.

Rather, it’s obvious that you use “bad writing” as a back door to attack diversity.