|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jun 11, 2020 0:04:13 GMT
You're referring to a tiny compilation of gimmicks and angles used for foreign competitors which were, mostly, done for comedic effect, not to be taken seriously, and did not overtake the entire program or tell the viewer that there is only one perspective to have on an issue. You seem to be missing what we are getting at here - we're not talking about storylines and characters designed to entertain we're talking about how in the age of cancel culture and political correctness many people involved in the sport, and entertainment as a whole, seem to take issue with opposing viewpoints, broadcast them for the whole world to see without thinking about possibly alienating consumers, and that some people might lose work if they don't 'go with the flow'. Get the idea better? I hope so. A very small number of fans want to see what their favorite celebrities think and feel politically - most however follow their favorite celebrities just to get updates on their work not be lectured by, and sometimes when they call them out on their BS said favorite celebrities tell them to screw off which isn't very professional or a good look. Huge disagreement there. Fritz Von Erich, The Sheik, Iron Sheik, Nikita Koloff, Ivan Koloff (who defeated Bruno Sammartino), and the list goes on. These were not comedic and in fact were more often than not, the main events. I disagree about it being only a small number of fans. People want to know everything. They only get upset when it disagrees with their views. It's the curse of being a celebrity. You're missing the point. All areas of life have involved politics for decades. You can even go back to people trying to destroy Beatles albums because of some seemingly anti-religious statement. That right there is cancel culture. This isn't new. Get it? I hope so, too. I said mostly, not all. There is a difference. Second, the political angles of those storylines were black and white where you had an identifiable heel for the audience to boo at and an identifiable babyface to root for and when the heel lost everyone would cheer. The audience, regardless of who their political party was, could root for the hero and hate the villain. It's a small number, by comparison a million is a far cry from billions. No, most get upset when a celebrity breaks their contract and tries to preach and isn't at all diplomatic, clearly telling anyone who disagrees with them to screw off. Oh for crying out loud, where did I say cancel culture never existed? Of course it existed in history before the age of the internet, I am saying that it is far more ENHANCED now BECAUSE of the internet. BECAUSE of this cancel culture is much more of a big deal these days than it was in the past. Please, keep up. |
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Jun 14, 2020 10:33:29 GMT
Are they taking a knee yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 15, 2020 13:03:03 GMT
Are they taking a knee yet? New Day proudly did. It was beautiful and touching. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 15, 2020 13:06:28 GMT
Huge disagreement there. Fritz Von Erich, The Sheik, Iron Sheik, Nikita Koloff, Ivan Koloff (who defeated Bruno Sammartino), and the list goes on. These were not comedic and in fact were more often than not, the main events. I disagree about it being only a small number of fans. People want to know everything. They only get upset when it disagrees with their views. It's the curse of being a celebrity. You're missing the point. All areas of life have involved politics for decades. You can even go back to people trying to destroy Beatles albums because of some seemingly anti-religious statement. That right there is cancel culture. This isn't new. Get it? I hope so, too. I said mostly, not all. There is a difference. Second, the political angles of those storylines were black and white where you had an identifiable heel for the audience to boo at and an identifiable babyface to root for and when the heel lost everyone would cheer. The audience, regardless of who their political party was, could root for the hero and hate the villain. It's a small number, by comparison a million is a far cry from billions. No, most get upset when a celebrity breaks their contract and tries to preach and isn't at all diplomatic, clearly telling anyone who disagrees with them to screw off. Oh for crying out loud, where did I say cancel culture never existed? Of course it existed in history before the age of the internet, I am saying that it is far more ENHANCED now BECAUSE of the internet. BECAUSE of this cancel culture is much more of a big deal these days than it was in the past. Please, keep up. Because somehow foreign = villain. I'm glad we've evolved beyond that. And nah, it's a small minority that gets upset with celebs. And only when the celeb disagrees with them. If they didn't, they'd be happy. I disagree it's enhanced. I'd say destroying property was far more enhanced than some tweets. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jun 15, 2020 19:27:04 GMT
I said mostly, not all. There is a difference. Second, the political angles of those storylines were black and white where you had an identifiable heel for the audience to boo at and an identifiable babyface to root for and when the heel lost everyone would cheer. The audience, regardless of who their political party was, could root for the hero and hate the villain. It's a small number, by comparison a million is a far cry from billions. No, most get upset when a celebrity breaks their contract and tries to preach and isn't at all diplomatic, clearly telling anyone who disagrees with them to screw off. Oh for crying out loud, where did I say cancel culture never existed? Of course it existed in history before the age of the internet, I am saying that it is far more ENHANCED now BECAUSE of the internet. BECAUSE of this cancel culture is much more of a big deal these days than it was in the past. Please, keep up. Because somehow foreign = villain. I'm glad we've evolved beyond that. And nah, it's a small minority that gets upset with celebs. And only when the celeb disagrees with them. If they didn't, they'd be happy. I disagree it's enhanced. I'd say destroying property was far more enhanced than some tweets. I am afraid you are missing my point again, and it's becoming so eye rolling now I think it be best for you to consider to leave this discussion as its not really going anywhere, unless you are well aware of it and just messing around for amusement. Sorry to disappoint you but not its not a small minority. If it were as small a minority of people as you claim then we wouldn't have some prominent entertainers try to defend themselves from such feedback, or see Ricky Gervais make the same opening monologue that he did for this year's Golden Globes - which was a thing of beauty by the way in my book, but I get the feeling the exact opposite for yours. Based on some statistics most of the common person are not influenced by celebrity voter swaying and are not partial to their political commentary, hence why despite many entertainers hailing Hillary Clinton to be an angel from the heavens that all should vote in the 2016 presidential race...Most didn't buy what they were selling and voted for Trump who had much less celebrity endorsements. Most people have no issue if a celebrity gets political if they express themselves with actual data and are diplomatic in their initial postings, but the celebrities who do such a thing are very few and have sent a message to everybody that if you swing right they want nothing to do with you, i.e. Ellen Pompeo said she doesn't want Trump supporters for fans, Billy Eichner has expressed hope that all who wear MAGA hats should burn in hell, and Will & Grace themselves tried to rally up support for blacklist industry folks who would be donating to a Trump rally last year. I don't see how anyone could argue that cancel culture isn't enhanced these days, or that it is less effective than before. Back in the day if someone were to get cancelled they would have had to have committed a crime that warranted arrest and jail time, these days if you say something controversial and which goes against group think or is just too extreme you run the risk of losing your job, your friends, and support and it doesn't even matter how long ago they were written. |
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jun 15, 2020 21:02:37 GMT
Because somehow foreign = villain. I'm glad we've evolved beyond that. And nah, it's a small minority that gets upset with celebs. And only when the celeb disagrees with them. If they didn't, they'd be happy. I disagree it's enhanced. I'd say destroying property was far more enhanced than some tweets. Back in the day if someone were to get cancelled they would have had to have committed a crime that warranted arrest and jail time, these days if you say something controversial and which goes against group think or is just too extreme you run the risk of losing your job, your friends, and support and it doesn't even matter how long ago they were written. There is nothing to argue about. Unless a person is so blinded by their own partisanship that they can't even see straight. I just heard about that soccer player who got fired and demoralized because of something he didn't even say. His wife tweeted something. And it wasn't controversial at all. These are examples that are happening almost daily. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 17, 2020 12:54:53 GMT
Because somehow foreign = villain. I'm glad we've evolved beyond that. And nah, it's a small minority that gets upset with celebs. And only when the celeb disagrees with them. If they didn't, they'd be happy. I disagree it's enhanced. I'd say destroying property was far more enhanced than some tweets. I am afraid you are missing my point again, and it's becoming so eye rolling now I think it be best for you to consider to leave this discussion as its not really going anywhere, unless you are well aware of it and just messing around for amusement. Sorry to disappoint you but not its not a small minority. If it were as small a minority of people as you claim then we wouldn't have some prominent entertainers try to defend themselves from such feedback, or see Ricky Gervais make the same opening monologue that he did for this year's Golden Globes - which was a thing of beauty by the way in my book, but I get the feeling the exact opposite for yours. Based on some statistics most of the common person are not influenced by celebrity voter swaying and are not partial to their political commentary, hence why despite many entertainers hailing Hillary Clinton to be an angel from the heavens that all should vote in the 2016 presidential race...Most didn't buy what they were selling and voted for Trump who had much less celebrity endorsements. Most people have no issue if a celebrity gets political if they express themselves with actual data and are diplomatic in their initial postings, but the celebrities who do such a thing are very few and have sent a message to everybody that if you swing right they want nothing to do with you, i.e. Ellen Pompeo said she doesn't want Trump supporters for fans, Billy Eichner has expressed hope that all who wear MAGA hats should burn in hell, and Will & Grace themselves tried to rally up support for blacklist industry folks who would be donating to a Trump rally last year. I don't see how anyone could argue that cancel culture isn't enhanced these days, or that it is less effective than before. Back in the day if someone were to get cancelled they would have had to have committed a crime that warranted arrest and jail time, these days if you say something controversial and which goes against group think or is just too extreme you run the risk of losing your job, your friends, and support and it doesn't even matter how long ago they were written. Nah, you can leave if you want to, but the point is politics have always been in entertainment. No one can deny it. It actually is a small minority. They lose very few followers whenever they talk about their politics. Trump didn't have less celebrity endorsements. Trump himself was the ultimate celebrity endorsement. People totally bought it. Arrest or jail time? Nah, guys like Lennon, Ozzy Osbourne, Michael Jackson, Robert Downey Jr., and the list goes on never really lost many fans despite their arrests. Heck, if anything, that's new. Nowadays celebs lose fans based on their crimes more than in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jun 17, 2020 22:31:21 GMT
I am afraid you are missing my point again, and it's becoming so eye rolling now I think it be best for you to consider to leave this discussion as its not really going anywhere, unless you are well aware of it and just messing around for amusement. Sorry to disappoint you but not its not a small minority. If it were as small a minority of people as you claim then we wouldn't have some prominent entertainers try to defend themselves from such feedback, or see Ricky Gervais make the same opening monologue that he did for this year's Golden Globes - which was a thing of beauty by the way in my book, but I get the feeling the exact opposite for yours. Based on some statistics most of the common person are not influenced by celebrity voter swaying and are not partial to their political commentary, hence why despite many entertainers hailing Hillary Clinton to be an angel from the heavens that all should vote in the 2016 presidential race...Most didn't buy what they were selling and voted for Trump who had much less celebrity endorsements. Most people have no issue if a celebrity gets political if they express themselves with actual data and are diplomatic in their initial postings, but the celebrities who do such a thing are very few and have sent a message to everybody that if you swing right they want nothing to do with you, i.e. Ellen Pompeo said she doesn't want Trump supporters for fans, Billy Eichner has expressed hope that all who wear MAGA hats should burn in hell, and Will & Grace themselves tried to rally up support for blacklist industry folks who would be donating to a Trump rally last year. I don't see how anyone could argue that cancel culture isn't enhanced these days, or that it is less effective than before. Back in the day if someone were to get cancelled they would have had to have committed a crime that warranted arrest and jail time, these days if you say something controversial and which goes against group think or is just too extreme you run the risk of losing your job, your friends, and support and it doesn't even matter how long ago they were written. Nah, you can leave if you want to, but the point is politics have always been in entertainment. No one can deny it. It actually is a small minority. They lose very few followers whenever they talk about their politics. Trump didn't have less celebrity endorsements. Trump himself was the ultimate celebrity endorsement. People totally bought it. Arrest or jail time? Nah, guys like Lennon, Ozzy Osbourne, Michael Jackson, Robert Downey Jr., and the list goes on never really lost many fans despite their arrests. Heck, if anything, that's new. Nowadays celebs lose fans based on their crimes more than in the past. And I never denied it, my point was that it had less of a shadow on entertainment in the past, these days finding apolitical entertainment is a bit hard in the mainstream marketplace than it used to be. Okay, so if only a small and insignificant minority is complaining...Then why have some celebrities, or general entertainment professionals, felt the need to block their critics, why The Big Bang Theory's own Mayim Bialik decided to make a video on her own YouTube channel to defend herself, and again I ask you(and please at least respond to this part of the paragraph) - why did Ricky Gervais felt the need to get up at the Golden Globes and tell a whole room of major entertainment professionals that nobody at home really cares about what woke points they care to score and just want to them to talk about their work? Also answer why his opening monologue resonated with so many of the common consumer hence the many shares and likes online? Clearly this small and insignificant minority had enough impact to capture Gervais's attention, and he didn't disagree. Er, yes, Trump did have less endorsements from *other* celebrities(You think I don't know Trump wasn't one before he decided to run for office?) than Hillary Clinton had. Depending on the crime and the evidence against them though, in today's environment 'listen and believe' is considered in the mainstream to be more than enough than what the court of law determines and people get cancelled. People are even cancelled by association, even for petty reasons like political opinions i.e. Kevin Sorbo was banned from a comic convention because the convention owner found out he was friends with Sean Hannity. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 18, 2020 17:48:34 GMT
Nah, you can leave if you want to, but the point is politics have always been in entertainment. No one can deny it. It actually is a small minority. They lose very few followers whenever they talk about their politics. Trump didn't have less celebrity endorsements. Trump himself was the ultimate celebrity endorsement. People totally bought it. Arrest or jail time? Nah, guys like Lennon, Ozzy Osbourne, Michael Jackson, Robert Downey Jr., and the list goes on never really lost many fans despite their arrests. Heck, if anything, that's new. Nowadays celebs lose fans based on their crimes more than in the past. And I never denied it, my point was that it had less of a shadow on entertainment in the past, these days finding apolitical entertainment is a bit hard in the mainstream marketplace than it used to be. Okay, so if only a small and insignificant minority is complaining...Then why have some celebrities, or general entertainment professionals, felt the need to block their critics, why The Big Bang Theory's own Mayim Bialik decided to make a video on her own YouTube channel to defend herself, and again I ask you(and please at least respond to this part of the paragraph) - why did Ricky Gervais felt the need to get up at the Golden Globes and tell a whole room of major entertainment professionals that nobody at home really cares about what woke points they care to score and just want to them to talk about their work? Also answer why his opening monologue resonated with so many of the common consumer hence the many shares and likes online? Clearly this small and insignificant minority had enough impact to capture Gervais's attention, and he didn't disagree. Er, yes, Trump did have less endorsements from *other* celebrities(You think I don't know Trump wasn't one before he decided to run for office?) than Hillary Clinton had. Depending on the crime and the evidence against them though, in today's environment 'listen and believe' is considered in the mainstream to be more than enough than what the court of law determines and people get cancelled. People are even cancelled by association, even for petty reasons like political opinions i.e. Kevin Sorbo was banned from a comic convention because the convention owner found out he was friends with Sean Hannity. I disagree. It was a lot harder in the past. A lot of entertainers built their careers on being political. They feel the need to block because most of it is either whiney name calling or death threats. Not actual critiques. Ricky Gervais is a comedian and was just telling others not to do the same thing he's been doing for years. Hardly the poster child for the anti-political crowd. Trump was the celebrity endorsement. People fell for it. You can't say they don't want celebrities being political when they keep electing celebrities to office: Ronald Regan, Arnold, Trump, Jesse Ventura, Kane, Al Franken, etc. You sure it wasn't because of Sorbo's weird tweets about abortion and sexism? In any case, it's up to the company to decide what to do. People have been cancelled for years even without proof in a court of law. Advertisers don't want to deal with potential fallout. It's nothing new. And it's not more prevalent. It just feels like it because of social media. |
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jun 18, 2020 20:10:06 GMT
I hear cm punk is the newest wannabe activist. He called aj styles a racist. Not even because he spoke out against BLM. His biggest crime was he didn’t praise the movement and endorse them
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jun 18, 2020 20:21:13 GMT
And I never denied it, my point was that it had less of a shadow on entertainment in the past, these days finding apolitical entertainment is a bit hard in the mainstream marketplace than it used to be. Okay, so if only a small and insignificant minority is complaining...Then why have some celebrities, or general entertainment professionals, felt the need to block their critics, why The Big Bang Theory's own Mayim Bialik decided to make a video on her own YouTube channel to defend herself, and again I ask you(and please at least respond to this part of the paragraph) - why did Ricky Gervais felt the need to get up at the Golden Globes and tell a whole room of major entertainment professionals that nobody at home really cares about what woke points they care to score and just want to them to talk about their work? Also answer why his opening monologue resonated with so many of the common consumer hence the many shares and likes online? Clearly this small and insignificant minority had enough impact to capture Gervais's attention, and he didn't disagree. Er, yes, Trump did have less endorsements from *other* celebrities(You think I don't know Trump wasn't one before he decided to run for office?) than Hillary Clinton had. Depending on the crime and the evidence against them though, in today's environment 'listen and believe' is considered in the mainstream to be more than enough than what the court of law determines and people get cancelled. People are even cancelled by association, even for petty reasons like political opinions i.e. Kevin Sorbo was banned from a comic convention because the convention owner found out he was friends with Sean Hannity. I disagree. It was a lot harder in the past. A lot of entertainers built their careers on being political. They feel the need to block because most of it is either whiney name calling or death threats. Not actual critiques. Ricky Gervais is a comedian and was just telling others not to do the same thing he's been doing for years. Hardly the poster child for the anti-political crowd. Trump was the celebrity endorsement. People fell for it. You can't say they don't want celebrities being political when they keep electing celebrities to office: Ronald Regan, Arnold, Trump, Jesse Ventura, Kane, Al Franken, etc. You sure it wasn't because of Sorbo's weird tweets about abortion and sexism? In any case, it's up to the company to decide what to do. People have been cancelled for years even without proof in a court of law. Advertisers don't want to deal with potential fallout. It's nothing new. And it's not more prevalent. It just feels like it because of social media. I think perhaps it would be good to talk on what specific entertainment I am referring to, as it is a very broad term. Is your counter argument including talk shows like Larry King, Charlie Rose, to satiric commentary like The Daily Show and programs which were designed to be political in mission statement or in story conceptualization like a white house drama or sitcom? In which case, yes, they were political because that is what they were designed to be. The entertainments I am referring to are mostly to absolutely escapist fare that is designed primarily to entertain and be accessible to most audience demographics, such as a science fiction fantasy like a Star Trek or a Twilight Zone to a superhero program like a Batman or a Superman to a sexy spy thriller like a Mission: Impossible, a Bond, or an Avengers(Not the Marvel property, but I include comic books as well here), or high adventure video games like an Uncharted or a Street Fighter, or riveting sporting events like professional wrestling, mixed martial arts, or soccer and basketball. Of course, politics have always existed within said entertainments, but they were viewed through the lens of a purely humanist perspective and reinforced generally perceived views that were understood clearly by audiences which were wide and varied. The original Star Trek series presented a diverse cast of characters who interacted with one another with ease and no hesitation, they had relationships with people who were not of the same race, or culture, or even the same species(helping promote the theme of unity) and whenever they preached it was a message that all in the audience could root for and understand, they didn't bother calling out the politicians of the time the series aired because it was set far in the future, and they didn't hammer in the sins of culture from the time period it aired in either because again it was far into the future. More importantly, they told real stories that were engaging, the politics didn't take over the storylines which were not political. Compare that to the newer Star Trek iterations Discovery and Picard, all devoid of subtlety with pointless and forced attempts at scoring 'woke' points and striving to be too dark and edgy that it barely resembles what the IP is, hence why most Trekkies, or Trekkers, praise The Orville. And the new Twilight Zone lacks all the subtlety and humanism of the original Rod Serling series, where most stories presented an easily identifiable and common conflict that most could apply to everyday life. James Bond definitely does not need to be progressive as a character or preach about political correctness, because that is not his character - he is a relic of the period he was created in, and through the years that has kept his appeal alive and well, when you try too hard to deconstruct 007 he's pretty much like the parody version in that one episode of The Critic from the mid 90's where Jay Sherman reviews a PC 007 flick for his show Coming Attractions. And really nobody wants to play Tomb Raider to hear Lara Croft talk about destroying the patriarchy, they want to play as her running, jumping, and getting out of insane and difficult situations, same with a Nathan Drake, or a Bayonetta, or a BloodRayne, etc. Regarding sporting events, everyone in attendance wants an identifiable face to root for and an identifiable heel to boo so when they fight each other as individuals or teams the competition becomes much more engaging making the spectacle of the performance more impressive. Actually, the number of people who resort to name-calling and threatening remarks towards entertainment industry professionals is not that high a number, and more often than not said professionals block fans who even try to present a civil counter argument to their claim - seen this hundreds of times. Ricky is definitely a lefty and has definitely made political commentary in his career and will do so in the future, however clearly the constant political virtue signals at award shows, talk shows, and in general entertainment is making so many of the average consumer rolling their eyes and he, as an industry professional in the arts, feels the way too given the stark hypocrisy behind the scenes. I mean, most in the mainstream media hate Trump to the bone but just a few years ago he was welcomed by most everyone who ignored his questionable qualities and many came up to him to get an endorsement, perfect example Spike Lee - he hates on Trump all the time, but there are pictures and videos of them being real chummy, so what the hell? And thanks for proving my suspicion right that you didn't like Gervais' epic Golden Globes monologue  People generally don't want celebrities to be involved with politics unless they make it their profession in life and campaign seriously, then they take them more seriously. Nope, he was fired by the convention owner for being friends with Sean Hannity - they made a tweet about it. And being common doesn't mean its right. It's wrong, very wrong, to dismiss a person from working for a company, on a product, or being a guest at an event for having difference of opinion because it shows how weak a spine the person has. It is also disappointing for the fans, with whom conventions are intended for in the first place. Tell you what, seeing as you are a Joss Whedon fan what if there was a convention dedicated to Whedon's works and everyone who has been cast in his shows and movies were there except for David Boreanaz and Adam Baldwin because of their Conservative views? Baldwin is totally a Republican and Boreanaz leans right, and if the convention owners denied them to appear not because of money but because of political beliefs and even made an effort to try and devalue their contributions to Angel, Buffy, and Firefly how would you, as a fan, feel? Sorry, but you're kind of contradicting yourself, so it isn't new and not enchaned but feels that way because of social medial? When more often than not cancel culture is a result of social media. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jun 18, 2020 20:22:33 GMT
I hear cm punk is the newest wannabe activist. He called aj styles a racist. Not even because he spoke out against BLM. His biggest crime was he didn’t praise the movement and endorse them CM Punk is, well, a punk. He hasn't had a whole lot of success outside of the WWE and probably doesn't want to come back ether. Guess he may be trying to get a movie or TV deal and wants to show that he is not among 'those' from the company... |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 23, 2020 18:23:12 GMT
I disagree. It was a lot harder in the past. A lot of entertainers built their careers on being political. They feel the need to block because most of it is either whiney name calling or death threats. Not actual critiques. Ricky Gervais is a comedian and was just telling others not to do the same thing he's been doing for years. Hardly the poster child for the anti-political crowd. Trump was the celebrity endorsement. People fell for it. You can't say they don't want celebrities being political when they keep electing celebrities to office: Ronald Regan, Arnold, Trump, Jesse Ventura, Kane, Al Franken, etc. You sure it wasn't because of Sorbo's weird tweets about abortion and sexism? In any case, it's up to the company to decide what to do. People have been cancelled for years even without proof in a court of law. Advertisers don't want to deal with potential fallout. It's nothing new. And it's not more prevalent. It just feels like it because of social media. I think perhaps it would be good to talk on what specific entertainment I am referring to, as it is a very broad term. Is your counter argument including talk shows like Larry King, Charlie Rose, to satiric commentary like The Daily Show and programs which were designed to be political in mission statement or in story conceptualization like a white house drama or sitcom? In which case, yes, they were political because that is what they were designed to be. The entertainments I am referring to are mostly to absolutely escapist fare that is designed primarily to entertain and be accessible to most audience demographics, such as a science fiction fantasy like a Star Trek or a Twilight Zone to a superhero program like a Batman or a Superman to a sexy spy thriller like a Mission: Impossible, a Bond, or an Avengers(Not the Marvel property, but I include comic books as well here), or high adventure video games like an Uncharted or a Street Fighter, or riveting sporting events like professional wrestling, mixed martial arts, or soccer and basketball. Of course, politics have always existed within said entertainments, but they were viewed through the lens of a purely humanist perspective and reinforced generally perceived views that were understood clearly by audiences which were wide and varied. The original Star Trek series presented a diverse cast of characters who interacted with one another with ease and no hesitation, they had relationships with people who were not of the same race, or culture, or even the same species(helping promote the theme of unity) and whenever they preached it was a message that all in the audience could root for and understand, they didn't bother calling out the politicians of the time the series aired because it was set far in the future, and they didn't hammer in the sins of culture from the time period it aired in either because again it was far into the future. More importantly, they told real stories that were engaging, the politics didn't take over the storylines which were not political. Compare that to the newer Star Trek iterations Discovery and Picard, all devoid of subtlety with pointless and forced attempts at scoring 'woke' points and striving to be too dark and edgy that it barely resembles what the IP is, hence why most Trekkies, or Trekkers, praise The Orville. And the new Twilight Zone lacks all the subtlety and humanism of the original Rod Serling series, where most stories presented an easily identifiable and common conflict that most could apply to everyday life. James Bond definitely does not need to be progressive as a character or preach about political correctness, because that is not his character - he is a relic of the period he was created in, and through the years that has kept his appeal alive and well, when you try too hard to deconstruct 007 he's pretty much like the parody version in that one episode of The Critic from the mid 90's where Jay Sherman reviews a PC 007 flick for his show Coming Attractions. And really nobody wants to play Tomb Raider to hear Lara Croft talk about destroying the patriarchy, they want to play as her running, jumping, and getting out of insane and difficult situations, same with a Nathan Drake, or a Bayonetta, or a BloodRayne, etc. Regarding sporting events, everyone in attendance wants an identifiable face to root for and an identifiable heel to boo so when they fight each other as individuals or teams the competition becomes much more engaging making the spectacle of the performance more impressive. Actually, the number of people who resort to name-calling and threatening remarks towards entertainment industry professionals is not that high a number, and more often than not said professionals block fans who even try to present a civil counter argument to their claim - seen this hundreds of times. Ricky is definitely a lefty and has definitely made political commentary in his career and will do so in the future, however clearly the constant political virtue signals at award shows, talk shows, and in general entertainment is making so many of the average consumer rolling their eyes and he, as an industry professional in the arts, feels the way too given the stark hypocrisy behind the scenes. I mean, most in the mainstream media hate Trump to the bone but just a few years ago he was welcomed by most everyone who ignored his questionable qualities and many came up to him to get an endorsement, perfect example Spike Lee - he hates on Trump all the time, but there are pictures and videos of them being real chummy, so what the hell? And thanks for proving my suspicion right that you didn't like Gervais' epic Golden Globes monologue People generally don't want celebrities to be involved with politics unless they make it their profession in life and campaign seriously, then they take them more seriously. Nope, he was fired by the convention owner for being friends with Sean Hannity - they made a tweet about it. And being common doesn't mean its right. It's wrong, very wrong, to dismiss a person from working for a company, on a product, or being a guest at an event for having difference of opinion because it shows how weak a spine the person has. It is also disappointing for the fans, with whom conventions are intended for in the first place. Tell you what, seeing as you are a Joss Whedon fan what if there was a convention dedicated to Whedon's works and everyone who has been cast in his shows and movies were there except for David Boreanaz and Adam Baldwin because of their Conservative views? Baldwin is totally a Republican and Boreanaz leans right, and if the convention owners denied them to appear not because of money but because of political beliefs and even made an effort to try and devalue their contributions to Angel, Buffy, and Firefly how would you, as a fan, feel? Sorry, but you're kind of contradicting yourself, so it isn't new and not enchaned but feels that way because of social medial? When more often than not cancel culture is a result of social media. Like I said, politics have always been in the entertainment industry. Every bit of entertainment you mentioned was filled with the politics of their time. Gervais is a hilarious comedian. I can find people funny and not agree with them. So now people do want celebrities in politics? Sounds like you're contradicting yourself. Disagree that it's not a high number. I've seen it the other way. Celebrities blocking death threats and engaging in civil discussion. That's usually how it goes. It's actually not wrong fire someone for political affiliation. That's not a protected class. Nope, that's not a contradiction. Cancel culture has been around for decades. Long before social media. In all honesty, if Baldwin and Boreanaz were denied entry, I'd think it's a shame and move on because I rarely go to cons for the celeb meet and greets. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jun 23, 2020 19:25:11 GMT
I think perhaps it would be good to talk on what specific entertainment I am referring to, as it is a very broad term. Is your counter argument including talk shows like Larry King, Charlie Rose, to satiric commentary like The Daily Show and programs which were designed to be political in mission statement or in story conceptualization like a white house drama or sitcom? In which case, yes, they were political because that is what they were designed to be. The entertainments I am referring to are mostly to absolutely escapist fare that is designed primarily to entertain and be accessible to most audience demographics, such as a science fiction fantasy like a Star Trek or a Twilight Zone to a superhero program like a Batman or a Superman to a sexy spy thriller like a Mission: Impossible, a Bond, or an Avengers(Not the Marvel property, but I include comic books as well here), or high adventure video games like an Uncharted or a Street Fighter, or riveting sporting events like professional wrestling, mixed martial arts, or soccer and basketball. Of course, politics have always existed within said entertainments, but they were viewed through the lens of a purely humanist perspective and reinforced generally perceived views that were understood clearly by audiences which were wide and varied. The original Star Trek series presented a diverse cast of characters who interacted with one another with ease and no hesitation, they had relationships with people who were not of the same race, or culture, or even the same species(helping promote the theme of unity) and whenever they preached it was a message that all in the audience could root for and understand, they didn't bother calling out the politicians of the time the series aired because it was set far in the future, and they didn't hammer in the sins of culture from the time period it aired in either because again it was far into the future. More importantly, they told real stories that were engaging, the politics didn't take over the storylines which were not political. Compare that to the newer Star Trek iterations Discovery and Picard, all devoid of subtlety with pointless and forced attempts at scoring 'woke' points and striving to be too dark and edgy that it barely resembles what the IP is, hence why most Trekkies, or Trekkers, praise The Orville. And the new Twilight Zone lacks all the subtlety and humanism of the original Rod Serling series, where most stories presented an easily identifiable and common conflict that most could apply to everyday life. James Bond definitely does not need to be progressive as a character or preach about political correctness, because that is not his character - he is a relic of the period he was created in, and through the years that has kept his appeal alive and well, when you try too hard to deconstruct 007 he's pretty much like the parody version in that one episode of The Critic from the mid 90's where Jay Sherman reviews a PC 007 flick for his show Coming Attractions. And really nobody wants to play Tomb Raider to hear Lara Croft talk about destroying the patriarchy, they want to play as her running, jumping, and getting out of insane and difficult situations, same with a Nathan Drake, or a Bayonetta, or a BloodRayne, etc. Regarding sporting events, everyone in attendance wants an identifiable face to root for and an identifiable heel to boo so when they fight each other as individuals or teams the competition becomes much more engaging making the spectacle of the performance more impressive. Actually, the number of people who resort to name-calling and threatening remarks towards entertainment industry professionals is not that high a number, and more often than not said professionals block fans who even try to present a civil counter argument to their claim - seen this hundreds of times. Ricky is definitely a lefty and has definitely made political commentary in his career and will do so in the future, however clearly the constant political virtue signals at award shows, talk shows, and in general entertainment is making so many of the average consumer rolling their eyes and he, as an industry professional in the arts, feels the way too given the stark hypocrisy behind the scenes. I mean, most in the mainstream media hate Trump to the bone but just a few years ago he was welcomed by most everyone who ignored his questionable qualities and many came up to him to get an endorsement, perfect example Spike Lee - he hates on Trump all the time, but there are pictures and videos of them being real chummy, so what the hell? And thanks for proving my suspicion right that you didn't like Gervais' epic Golden Globes monologue People generally don't want celebrities to be involved with politics unless they make it their profession in life and campaign seriously, then they take them more seriously. Nope, he was fired by the convention owner for being friends with Sean Hannity - they made a tweet about it. And being common doesn't mean its right. It's wrong, very wrong, to dismiss a person from working for a company, on a product, or being a guest at an event for having difference of opinion because it shows how weak a spine the person has. It is also disappointing for the fans, with whom conventions are intended for in the first place. Tell you what, seeing as you are a Joss Whedon fan what if there was a convention dedicated to Whedon's works and everyone who has been cast in his shows and movies were there except for David Boreanaz and Adam Baldwin because of their Conservative views? Baldwin is totally a Republican and Boreanaz leans right, and if the convention owners denied them to appear not because of money but because of political beliefs and even made an effort to try and devalue their contributions to Angel, Buffy, and Firefly how would you, as a fan, feel? Sorry, but you're kind of contradicting yourself, so it isn't new and not enchaned but feels that way because of social medial? When more often than not cancel culture is a result of social media. Like I said, politics have always been in the entertainment industry. Every bit of entertainment you mentioned was filled with the politics of their time. Gervais is a hilarious comedian. I can find people funny and not agree with them. So now people do want celebrities in politics? Sounds like you're contradicting yourself. Disagree that it's not a high number. I've seen it the other way. Celebrities blocking death threats and engaging in civil discussion. That's usually how it goes. It's actually not wrong fire someone for political affiliation. That's not a protected class. Nope, that's not a contradiction. Cancel culture has been around for decades. Long before social media. In all honesty, if Baldwin and Boreanaz were denied entry, I'd think it's a shame and move on because I rarely go to cons for the celeb meet and greets. And like I said, the politics were handled better in the past with these entertainments, they spoke on a humanist level not a divisive one. You cannot seriously tell me with a straight face that Discovery and Picard handle politics better than the original Star Trek and The Next Generation had. Okay, so you liked Gervais' monologue at the Golden Globes or didn't you? Why or why not? I'm not, I'm saying if a celebrity changes careers and does get into politics and runs for office then people are okay with it because then they recognize that they are in a different field now and should be taken more seriously. Because the mainstream media, often dominated by Democrats, often exaggerates the number of toxic people in fandoms which causes stark generalization of them, they don't usually highlight people with comments which are diplomatic and provide fair counterpoints to certain celebrities' opinions, and said media tends to ignore said certain celebrities' rude comebacks to them. They tend to highlight constructive critical responses towards Republicans though, or make attempt to defend toxic liberal comments made at Republicans. Actually it is, quality of talent and work ethic should be the most important thing to look at when hiring or keeping a person for a position of work. Political opinions and religious beliefs should not affect the decision or hire or fire someone for work, an argument could be made that if the individual has a history of making very toxic comments which can potentially paint a negative light on the company or their product that a firing is necessary but quite often the decision comes down to political bias. Roseanne Barr was instantly cancelled for a comment she wrote to Valerie Jarrett which was interpreted as a racially motivated attack but it was actually a criticism of the way she was handling her state of affairs in her department(She didn't even know her race really was) and so she was let go from her own show which had pretty stellar ratings and was denied the opportunity to publicly apologize. Now I won't say Barr didn't deserve any flack for her comments and I won't say she's exactly a queen of class or anything but there are other entertainers receiving stable work in the entertainment industry who have say just as bad if not worse things regularly on their social media platforms and receive no criticism in the media. As mentioned before Billy Eichner of Billy on the Street fame has said a lot of really ugly comments about Trump, his staff, and most of all his supporters(Telling all of them to burn in hell repeatedly) but they are no position of losing work, in fact he has a movie produced by Judd Apatow set to release sometime next year, will be a lead in an upcoming season of American Crime Story, and has a sitcom set up on FX. Disney starlet Dove Cameron is currently going berserk on her social media as I type this constantly sharing conspiracy theories about Trump, making pretty intense verbal attacks at their supporters and telling fans of hers to screw off for disagreeing with her political views...Let's not kid ourselves, she is not going to lose any work anytime soon. Or ever. Industry professionals with less star power like voice acting talents such as Grey Griffin, Tara Strong, John DiMaggio, tv writers like Marti Noxon, comic book writers and illustrators such as Richard Pace, Tim Doyle, Dan Slott, etc. have histories of making pretty ugly comments directed at republican politicians, Trump, Trump supporters, and anyone who identifies as a fan but does not share their politics and not a single one of them is in jeopardy of losing any work. Grey Griffin in particular has said some very disgusting things online, made death threats, very sexually motivated jokes, and demanded the Covington High Schoolers be punished severely for what was a major misunderstanding a year ago - even celebrating that their school had to be closed down due to possibility of terroristic threats. Did anything happen? Nope. Griffin still enjoys employment on several programs, a lot of which are targeted at families like The Loud House. If it were up to me, yes I would strongly have considered firing Roseanne for her comments, but I would have also considered firing Eichner, Cameron, Griffin, Strong, DiMaggio, Noxon, Pace, Doyle, and Slott for their comments. Talent matters most, but no one should receive a free pass because of political affiliation if they do something stupid and mean. Er, yes, it is. You're saying its existed for years but feel more enhanced now due to social media...That suggests that it is more enhanced today. So you would agree that it would be wrong to deny Baldwin and Boreanaz entry because of political stances? Yes or no? |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 23, 2020 20:54:13 GMT
I guess Renee Young is asking to get fired so she can head on over to AEW, she recently liked an Instagram post by Chelsea Handler saying Republicans should be the only ones to go back to school this fall, which is not only ignorant and rude but also calls for anyone thinking right should become sick with COVID-19.
Vince, you paying attention? Time to lay down the law with your talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jul 24, 2020 17:30:07 GMT
I guess Renee Young is asking to get fired so she can head on over to AEW, she recently liked an Instagram post by Chelsea Handler saying Republicans should be the only ones to go back to school this fall, which is not only ignorant and rude but also calls for anyone thinking right should become sick with COVID-19. Vince, you paying attention? Time to lay down the law with your talent. In what context though? because they are the ones who deserve it more or the ones who need it more? could be funny as it's an issue both sides could agree with without agreeing as to why they agree. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 24, 2020 18:04:31 GMT
I guess Renee Young is asking to get fired so she can head on over to AEW, she recently liked an Instagram post by Chelsea Handler saying Republicans should be the only ones to go back to school this fall, which is not only ignorant and rude but also calls for anyone thinking right should become sick with COVID-19. Vince, you paying attention? Time to lay down the law with your talent. In what context though? because they are the ones who deserve it more or the ones who need it more? could be funny as it's an issue both sides could agree with without agreeing as to why they agree. Chelsea Handler is pretty notorious for her dislike on Trump, their supporters, and general Republicans, she often speaks of them in a negative way saying they are unintelligent and lack good manners and deny science. Handler's not exactly selective when she criticizes or riffs into who. |
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 24, 2020 20:31:20 GMT
Woke Wrestling Entertaintment
|
|
